Weapon Styles, Basket Weaving, and Concept Obsolesence

[Lago PARANOIA]

Lago, you're confusing mechanical effects that say you must use this weapon, with a character concept that says I would prefer to use that weapon.

And why is that a preference that the game must respect? Using only one kind of weapon isn't like painting all of your equipment pink or attaching skulls to it. When you're saying 'I only want to use swords' that implies that you're only going to use a certain range of special effects, same as if someone describes themselves 'the god of fire, machines, and basket weaving' you'd expect basket weaving to come up a lot.

A single melee weapon is very limited. Fundamentally, it's a piece of wood or metal that the human being twirls, jabs, and swings about to inflict violence or stop the violence from happening. Which in of itself means a lot at the low levels; if you're a 2nd-level assassin, the difference between a dagger and a +2 thundering shocking sword will make you lean towards the dagger, because you're operating at a tier of play low enough that the 3 feet of steel that you lose is enough of a consideration to use them.

Magical item properties however (in conjunction with character abilities and whatnot) scale upwards so damn quickly (or at least should) that they will completely override any piddling concerns like its shape or the 5 extra squares of range. The fundamental shape and function of the weapons do not change, but insisting that the difference is still big enough that it forms a big part of your character concept means that you're still stuck at low-level thinking.

It's seriously a rehash of the orc and elf barbarian problem. At low levels it doesn't offend our sensibilities that an orc is a butt-ton stronger than an elf and is a better barbarian in the 'lift heavy things' area. But when the game gets to the point where barbarian flavor is 'pull an old growth redwood tree out of the ground and do a marathon with it' the relative difference in strength between an orc and an elf barbarian is so tiny that continuing to make there be a difference hurts the game.

[Seerow]

I'm going to go ahead and agree with DeanRule, any feat or ability that requires a specific weapon is in general a bad idea. Once again I'm going to reitterate, the guy who chooses to use a sword above all else is doing so for thematic reasons, not mechanical ones. He should be capable of picking up an axe or a hammer and kicking ass with it, but he shouldn't be required to do so to keep up.


If there is any sort of specialization, it should be in fighting styles. Like using a two handed weapon vs two weapon fighting vs sword and board. These fighting styles should be better balanced so that they are viable, though possibly beneficial for different things. Access to the base fighting style should be much easier (for example two weapon fighting should seriously be a proficiency, not a feat), and specialization into at least one fighting style should be something that most martial classes get free and some possibly getting access to more than one for free. (For example giving the Fighter two or three free fighting styles in addition to other features). These specializations if not gained through a class (say you want to branch out to an extra one as a martial class, or want to pick one up as a wizard), it should be much cheaper (like 1-3 feats as opposed to the current 4-10+).

But within those specializations, if you want to pick up a Axe, Hammer, Sword, what the fuck ever, you'll be equally good. If you want to use a weapon outside your specialization (such as contributing to ranged combat while not being focused on it), most of your tricks (powers, maneuvers, feats, whatever) should still work with that weapon, you just lose some of the specialization bonuses. Like shit like Rapid Shot should be rapid attack, so you take this feat and whether you're in melee or at range you get that extra attack. Or if looking at ToB-esque maneuvers, you can totally use your diamond mind strike with a bow and arrow, even if you're not specialized in ranged weapons. So characters can still remain totally relevant when working outside of their normal specialization, they're just more effective when working in their preferred fighting style(s).

[Seerow]

Lago, you're confusing mechanical effects that say you must use this weapon, with a character concept that says I would prefer to use that weapon.

And why is that a preference that the game must respect? Using only one kind of weapon isn't like painting all of your equipment pink or attaching skulls to it. When you're saying 'I only want to use swords' that implies that you're only going to use a certain range of special effects, same as if someone describes themselves 'the god of fire, machines, and basket weaving' you'd expect basket weaving to come up a lot.

You continue to say this. You have yet to prove it. And how is saying "I want to use a sword and not an axe" any more limited in character concept than saying "I want to use any melee weapon"? Does the fact that the character is willing to pick up a hammer instead of an axe make him less limited suddenly? The same general range of effects applies.

Your whole argument is that anyone who uses a weapon at all is a DMF. This is a fucking asinine argument, and if all you want to do is wank over how any weapon-based combat is shit, you should probably go work on a game that is all about magic where weapons are shit, rather than talking about D&D where people using weapons is a valid archtype that is central to the game.

[Username17]

I'm going to go ahead and agree with DeanRule, any feat or ability that requires a specific weapon is in general a bad idea. Once again I'm going to reitterate, the guy who chooses to use a sword above all else is doing so for thematic reasons, not mechanical ones. He should be capable of picking up an axe or a hammer and kicking ass with it, but he shouldn't be required to do so to keep up.

Luke Skywalker was literally told that he had access to a better weapon and he had to use it now. Specifically. By the other player characters. As a resident of Tatooine, had he not switched weapons he would have continued using a gaffii stick for melee combat:



If you get a better weapon, and you don't use it, you are gimping yourself. That's axiomatically true. And real characters in the real genre fiction that is being emulated do not do that.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

You continue to say this. You have yet to prove it. And how is saying "I want to use a sword and not an axe" any more limited in character concept than saying "I want to use any melee weapon"? Does the fact that the character is willing to pick up a hammer instead of an axe make him less limited suddenly?

Yes. Really.

Take Iron Man for example. Even disregarding the prototype version that came out 45+ years ago when he was just a man in a super-strength suit, today he uses weapons that would barely have even been thought of back then. If Iron Man uses sonic weaponry or microwave beams or rail guns or floating mines no one really gives a fuck. People would find it really odd if the character whose themes from the beginning were the issues of national vs. personal security and personal technological advancement (extremely relevant to modern D&D) was so married to a certain kind of weapon that he wouldn't even begin to think of using more weapons that came out even if they were better because he preferred old-school machine guns and death rays.

Characters who don't get their superpowers from or manifested in one weapon yet stick to a certain type anyway hardly exist at all in higher-powered fiction. In the Teen Titans cartoon, Robin has at several points in addition to his bo staff and birdarangs used tonfas, nun-chucks (sp), a friggin' sword, bolas, a wrist-mounted laser gun. In the newer Ninja Gaidens Ryu uses flails, katanas, a bigass claymore, kunai, a bow and arrow, and tonfa, a staff, a harpoon gun, and more. In Jade Empire in addition to several weird martial arts like turning into a giant frog, you have the option of using a staff, a spear, a sword, double swords, double axes, and a gun. And it's probably the most martial-artsy non fighter game ever made.

Your whole argument is that anyone who uses a weapon at all is a DMF. This is a fucking asinine argument, and if all you want to do is wank over how any weapon-based combat is shit, you should probably go work on a game that is all about magic where weapons are shit, rather than talking about D&D where people using weapons is a valid archtype that is central to the game.

No. Using weapons is a valid archetype for a character. Even the Saiyans in the post-Demon King Piccolo arcs of Dragonball have no compunction against using weapons on the rare occasions when they can find something as good as their weirdass martial arts.

What's not a valid archetype is eschewing a weapon of superior make and design because your envisioned fighting style would be derailed by using it. It's fine for lower levels because at that level of play the difference in functionality between a butterfly knife and a kukri actually means something. When weapons start doing crazy shit like the Sword of Omens and Nine-Toothed Rake and things get all Inuyasha up in this joint sticking to your older crap is basket weaving.

[Seerow]

Lago, you do realize the only way you can actually forcibly make what you want a reality is by making weapons matter more, right?

I mean, on the one hand you say that what your weapon is doesn't matter at all, because weapons are minor effects. On the other hand you're saying you should be using every weapon in the book for different things. You can't have it both ways, either weapons matter and you need the specific weapons for specific tasks, or they don't matter and a character can use whatever the fuck he wants.

In the case of a specific weapon for a specific task, then you have to realize when the task doesn't call for some other weapon, the character will go back to what he likes. Robin uses all these other weapons and gadgets, but in the end typically defaults to his staff. Luke will use a blaster when he needs it, but will typically default to his lightsaber. The only difference here is instead of the character just having his one sword, he has a golfbag full of various weapons just in case the need for one comes up.

In the case of weapons don't matter, why do you give a fuck if the character looted some epic magic halberd and transfered the enchantment into his longsword instead? If the only net effect was the player got to be happy with the mental image of his character, why are you so opposed to it?

[shadzar]

Lago, you're confusing mechanical effects that say you must use this weapon, with a character concept that says I would prefer to use that weapon.

And why is that a preference that the game must respect? Using only one kind of weapon isn't like painting all of your equipment pink or attaching skulls to it. When you're saying 'I only want to use swords' that implies that you're only going to use a certain range of special effects, same as if someone describes themselves 'the god of fire, machines, and basket weaving' you'd expect basket weaving to come up a lot.

You continue to say this. You have yet to prove it. And how is saying "I want to use a sword and not an axe" any more limited in character concept than saying "I want to use any melee weapon"?

Kender outside of Dragonlance.

however it got into your game, a kender now exists. while good inside a world that has kender, as they use the same stuff; outside of that world, what happens?

does every Tom, Dick, and Harry start carrying a hoopak?

if you chose something such as a limitation to a singular type of weapon, you are responsible for that same limitation of availability of that weapon in the world around you.

in a game about problem solving, and puzzle solving, and in general overcoming obstacles both external and internal...one should overcome the obstacle of limited abilities with a singular weapon.

Kender only finds daggers to use, then that was the kender's choice for being a kender. hoopak's arent crapped out by the gods just because a kender now exists.

[Seerow]

And why is that a preference that the game must respect? Using only one kind of weapon isn't like painting all of your equipment pink or attaching skulls to it. When you're saying 'I only want to use swords' that implies that you're only going to use a certain range of special effects, same as if someone describes themselves 'the god of fire, machines, and basket weaving' you'd expect basket weaving to come up a lot.

You continue to say this. You have yet to prove it. And how is saying "I want to use a sword and not an axe" any more limited in character concept than saying "I want to use any melee weapon"?

Kender outside of Dragonlance.

however it got into your game, a kender now exists. while good inside a world that has kender, as they use the same stuff; outside of that world, what happens?

does every Tom, Dick, and Harry start carrying a hoopak?

if you chose something such as a limitation to a singular type of weapon, you are responsible for that same limitation of availability of that weapon in the world around you.

in a game about problem solving, and puzzle solving, and in general overcoming obstacles both external and internal...one should overcome the obstacle of limited abilities with a singular weapon.

Kender only finds daggers to use, then that was the kender's choice for being a kender. hoopak's arent crapped out by the gods just because a kender now exists.

This argument is getting tiring. Please point to anywhere where I said that magical hoopaks should be dropped at all.

But your Kender should have the option to enchant his own Hoopak, or be badass enough that any hoopak or whatever other weapon he picks up acts as though it's enchanted, or be able to strip the enchantment off the magic longsword he looted and put it on his hoopak. No need to disrupt the game world or continuity, just mechanics in place to allow the character some semblance of choice over what their character uses. This isn't a big request, or even hard to implement. The only reason this is an argument at all is because Lago and Frank think it's stupid for anyone to actually have a weapon preference.

[Gx1080]

I have to agree with Lago here. Weapon Specializations are a TERRIBLE idea because you can't count on the requiered weapons to drop, MMO developers learned that a while ago.

On fictions where characters do use one weapon, it's usually a weapon that does everything. Gun-swords, swords that shoot beams, etc and mostly, even those are upgraded when requiered.

If you have a class where their powers are enchanting weapons with exclusive powers, then they can enchant ANY weapon. The weapon in itself doesn't matter, the magic on it does.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Lago, you do realize the only way you can actually forcibly make what you want a reality is by making weapons matter more, right?

That's the thing. I don't want weapons insofar as what their name is to matter. I only want their effects to matter. When weapons are small and weak the effect of 'is small and easily concealable' is very useful for a nonmagical or even a +1 sap. When weapons have an effect of 'grants always-on flight, smites evil people extra-hardcore, lets you teleport between teleportation circles located in Heaven and Earth, and lets you detect whether people are lying or telling the truth' or 'lets you control the weather in a 100km radius up to and including making it snow in the middle of the Sahara' the fact that it's a dagger or a maul is pretty minor.

If you make it a game effect so that you can transform the Maul of Storms into a Crossbow of Storms then you're tacitly or explicitly admitting that something as puny as that still makes enough of a difference that it should be in the game and people should care about. Which locks people into a low-level mentality. It's what made the class of Swordmage of 'cool elemental shit you can do at close range' into 'cool elemental shit you can do that's close-range sword related', which ended up more than being a mild flavor adjunct; it completely neutered the class. If Swordmage was decoupled from being sword-themed it'd force the game designers not to think of powers as being sword-related and we'd probably get a lot more creativity. 'Telekinesis and Teleportation' powers is a more limited archetype than 'Elemental Powers' yet the Battlemind manages to be much more creative and evocative than the Swordmage because the character isn't wedded to a particular melee weapon.

[Seerow]

I have to agree with Lago here. Weapon Specializations are a TERRIBLE idea because you can't count on the requiered weapons to drop, MMO developers learned that a while ago.

On fictions where characters do use one weapon, it's usually a weapon that does everything. Gun-swords, swords that shoot beams, etc and mostly, even those are upgraded when requiered.

If you have a class where their powers are enchanting weapons with exclusive powers, then they can enchant ANY weapon. The weapon in itself doesn't matter, the magic on it does.

Of course nobody's actually talking about weapon specializations. The closest thing mechanically was weapon category specialization (which last I checked MMOs hadn't dropped. Tanks still require a one handed weapon, Rogues still need a pair of one handers, DPS wars still require two handers, etc).

The actual act of saying "I prefer to use a single weapon type" is a thematic choice made by the character, not one encouraged by the character's powers. And most importantly, since D&D isn't an MMO there are more ways to get your weapon than killing a raid boss and looting its corpse waiting for that weapon type to drop. Alternate methods that can easily be included in a game have been brought up many times, and the only reason to dissuade them is because you don't think a character who uses a sword is really a character.

[Seerow]

If you make it a game effect so that you can transform the Maul of Storms into a Crossbow of Storms then you're tacitly or explicitly admitting that something as puny as that still makes enough of a difference that it should be in the game and people should care about. Which locks people into a low-level mentality

It only locks people into a low level mentality if more shit than that encourages it. Players most likely realize on a mechanical level, the fact that they choose to use a Dagger instead of a Short Sword only makes the difference of one extra damage on average, which is something they can shrug off and ignore. But thematically they want their rogue to use a goddamn dagger, so why not let them? I mean the character is busy teleporting through shadows and ripping peoples souls out, so why the hell do you care if he wants to do this while holding a dagger because he prefers his dagger?

Your examples keep going back to the swordmage as an example of how this mentality negatively effects things. I think that negative mentality can be more firmly pinned on the developers of 4e than on player mentality. You are fully capable of making a game where high level effects aren't so restrictive while still allowing a character to make a choice as simple as "I want to use this kind of weapon"

[Lago PARANOIA]

It only locks people into a low level mentality if more shit than that encourages it.

But thematically they want their rogue to use a goddamn dagger, so why not let them?

What you're not getting is that the difference in functionality between a dagger and a battleaxe is a low-level concern. If you gave high level 3.0E characters free ranks in Open Locks and Sense Direction that's hurting the game. Those skills become obsolete like 10 levels ago. Now, most PCs and DMs will realize that every second thinking about how to integrate those skills into the plot is a waste of time and will just pretend like they don't exist. But you still run the risk of PCs or DMs going 'hmm, how can I make it so that Sense Direction gets used in this adventure' which ruins the feel of the adventure in much the same way as Batman dodging Omega Beams or Sokka taking out Combustion Man does.

The Law of Conservation of Detail makes it so that if something is described players and readers will think that it's important in some way. And if it's not important then it should be made to be important. If you make a game mechanic that cares whether an artifact weapon is a bastard sword or mace, even if it's just strictly 'flavor based', it will be used and people will train their minds to find a meaning and implementation for it at some point. Why run that risk at all?

[Seerow]

It only locks people into a low level mentality if more shit than that encourages it.

But thematically they want their rogue to use a goddamn dagger, so why not let them?

What you're not getting is that the difference in functionality between a dagger and a battleaxe is a low-level concern. If you gave high level 3.0E characters free ranks in Open Locks and Sense Direction that's hurting the game. Those skills become obsolete like 10 levels ago. Now, most PCs and DMs will realize that every second thinking about how to integrate those skills into the plot is a waste of time and will just pretend like they don't exist. But you still run the risk of PCs or DMs going 'hmm, how can I make it so that Sense Direction gets used in this adventure' which ruins the feel of the adventure in much the same way as Batman dodging Omega Beams or Sokka taking out Combustion Man does.

But if the character has a dagger of storms rather than a shortspear of storms, is this going to waste any more time? It really won't. Most people won't even blink twice at it. It doesn't need to be important to the adventure that the character is using a dagger, any more than it would be important if he used a spear, or a axe, or whatever. The only thing it really matters to is the player, who wants his character to use a dagger. Allowing him to have his damn dagger and move on with the story makes him happy and doesn't cost you anything.

[Lago PARANOIA]

But if the character has a dagger of storms rather than a shortspear of storms, is this going to waste any more time?

This is an ambiguous question. As far as the magical item compendium goes, no. It doesn't matter whether the game lists a dagger of storms or a shortspear of storms (and I can see a historical fiction argument made for either) so that Schrodinger's Treasure won't and shouldn't make much of an impact on the game until it actually happens.

If the player complains about their shortspear of storms not being a dagger of storms, then yes, it is actually a time waster above and beyond the time it takes to declare that they're doing the magical item ritual. If they're complaining about a shortspear of storms then they're also probably complaining about getting Excalibur, the Nine Fang Rake, the Spear of Death, and Thor's Hammer not being in dagger form like they wanted. Them caring so much about an issue that was obsoleted many levels ago is both the symptom of and will cause problems.

It doesn't need to be important to the adventure that the character is using a dagger, any more than it would be important if he used a spear, or a axe, or whatever. The only thing it really matters to is the player, who wants his character to use a dagger.

These two statements are a contradiction. If a player is making enough of a deal about it to bring it up at all then the issue of whether the character is using a dagger of storms or a maul of storms is actually important to the adventure.

[Seerow]

These two statements are a contradiction. If a player is making enough of a deal about it to bring it up at all then the issue of whether the character is using a dagger of storms or a maul of storms is actually important to the adventure.

Except it's really not. It takes 2 seconds to say "Okay you do a quick ritual, and transfer the maul's property into the dagger, now moving on...". The GM has to make literally no effort to include daggers in the story, or make the dagger advantageous in combat or anything like that. The only thing that changes is the player is happier with his character image.

If the player complains about their shortspear of storms not being a dagger of storms, then yes, it is actually a time waster above and beyond the time it takes to declare that they're doing the magical item ritual. If they're complaining about a shortspear of storms then they're also probably complaining about getting Excalibur, the Nine Fang Rake, the Spear of Death, and Thor's Hammer not being in dagger form like they wanted. Them caring so much about an issue that was obsoleted many levels ago is both the symptom of and will cause problems.

Except each time, either those other weapons go to another party member who will use them, or the player takes the 2 seconds to change his weapons form. Over the course of a full campaign you might waste a grand total of one minute on it, as long as the GM isn't being a douche about it and wanting to make the ritual process a long and drawn out hassle.

[TheFlatline]

You know what that is? That is Darth Vader using every fucking weapon in that setting that isn't Wookie specific. For fuck's sake. Can you find any real example, or is this going to be another one of these shitty Robin Hood/Conan examples where you fucking weapon specialization fetishists repeatedly use examples of characters who do in fact use multiple weapons as if they only ever used one?

Darth Vader uses laser turrets and hand blasters. Also he uses a lightsaber, and sometimes he has fought with two lightsabers and he fights with found lightsabers. For fuck's sake, he is a fucking terrible example because he is one of the few characters in the entire series who shows up in enough combats to be depicted using clearly different weaponry and he fucking uses clearly different weaponry you fucking twat!

Congratulations, you got Anakin using a blaster. A fucking ranged weapon.

Yes, you're right we don't see other weapons in the universe. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Show me one case of Anakin using a different melee weapon.

The swordmaster picking up a bow, or using siege weaponry, when the situation warrants it, is fine. The swordmaster picking up an axe because it has an extra +1 over his sword is fucking stupid. There is a difference between these two things, even if you refuse to admit it.

Oh you mean like where he uses a chain in Episode 2 as a weapon/tool?

He also uses R2D2 as a weapon, even if he doesn't actually hold R2 in his hands.

Edit: Oh yeah, and he gets into a fist fight.

[Fuchs]

Yeah. Why be an asshole and prevent a player from turning the lightning double sword into a long sword? What is this 1E? "Play my way or die" gygax shit?

[RadiantPhoenix]

Your previous weapon didn't suddenly turn into a lightning double sword, so if you really want to, you can just keep using the old weapon and hand the new one off to a party member.

[shadzar]

how is saying "I want to use a sword and not an axe" any more limited in character concept than saying "I want to use any melee weapon"?

Kender outside of Dragonlance.

however it got into your game, a kender now exists. while good inside a world that has kender, as they use the same stuff; outside of that world, what happens?

does every Tom, Dick, and Harry start carrying a hoopak?

if you chose something such as a limitation to a singular type of weapon, you are responsible for that same limitation of availability of that weapon in the world around you.

in a game about problem solving, and puzzle solving, and in general overcoming obstacles both external and internal...one should overcome the obstacle of limited abilities with a singular weapon.

Kender only finds daggers to use, then that was the kender's choice for being a kender. hoopak's arent crapped out by the gods just because a kender now exists.

This argument is getting tiring. Please point to anywhere where I said that magical hoopaks should be dropped at all.

But your Kender should have the option to enchant his own Hoopak, or be badass enough that any hoopak or whatever other weapon he picks up acts as though it's enchanted, or be able to strip the enchantment off the magic longsword he looted and put it on his hoopak. No need to disrupt the game world or continuity, just mechanics in place to allow the character some semblance of choice over what their character uses. This isn't a big request, or even hard to implement. The only reason this is an argument at all is because Lago and Frank think it's stupid for anyone to actually have a weapon preference.

weapon limitation placed upon a character BY that character

how is saying "I want to use a sword and not an axe" any more limited in character concept than saying "I want to use any melee weapon"?

is why the kender is relevant. be it a hoopak, a rapier, etc.. the limitation placed by the player himself on the weapons used incur the need for the "dropping of magical hoopaks".

his is a player need and a problem, when the game isnt designed for that purpose.

YES you can design a limited character in many ways, but it doesnt mean that the game shoudl facilite you to cause the game to conform to your needs.

"gimped" characters are gimped. isnt that what people have been saying about it for years, so how is a low STR fighter any different than a character with the design concept of only using one type of weapon and not being adaptable to use whatever weapon they may find even if it breaks their INITIAL character design?

either a gimped character is a gimped character including one who only wants to use rapiers, or ANY character design is valid including the 8 STR fighter.

the world doesnt change to accommodate the 8 STR fighter, and it shouldnt change to accommodate the character who only wants to use rapiers, or hoopaks, etc.

but the kedner CAN use other things, which makes it les narrow than the character only using rapiers because the PLAYER wants such a constrined character concept that the entire game must be built for them.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The only thing that changes is the player is happier with his character image.

No. On the 'symptom' side, someone who is doing this is not getting with the program. If the difference between a dagger and a longsword really matters to you as a hero that turns into a Jade Golem, slows down time, and summons tornadoes that means that you're probably stuck in a low-level mentality. If someone who was promoted from middle-manager to CFO still cares about how employees in the break room aren't keeping it clean that's troubling because it's indicative of a thought process that shows that unable to compartmentalize and move with the new paradigm. Even if they're not letting it nominally interfere with their other duties and are only writing memos and pointed e-mails about it during their off time, the CEO and stockholders should be concerned that they care about it to this extent at all. It's possible that this is just a quirk, but even if it is just a quirk it can lead to more maladaptive behavior like micromanagement and lack of focus.

More damningly, the Law of Conversation of Detail means that to a player who genuinely didn't care about the difference at first is incentivized to care merely by highlighting the difference. If you mention that you have the option to transform Excalibur into a pair of daggers then it will come up and people will think about it. Which leads to the first paragraph.

The application to TTRPGs are obvious. In the grand scheme of things caring about what your weapon is shaped like at level 17 is overall harmless if it's the only thing people care about. But as the fail of the Swordmage has shown us a lot of people don't just think it's a minor flavor adjunct used to create depth but something that should be important to the functioning and focus of the game. In the grand scheme of things a Silvermage class where all of their powers were silver-themed should be about as much of a flavor imposition as a Swordmage class and while the outputs would be weird they'd be about on the same power level as each other. But from what we've seen, the actual Swordmage class was pretty narrow and not-high-level appropriate. When you're using the arcane power source at high levels your sword should be doing all kinds of crazy shit like transforming into elephants and creating sword-shaped portals in reality and creating holocausts of fire the size of a warship that just happens to be shaped like a sword. But what it ended up being is 'set your sword on element and hit someone with it'. A Silvermage class would in all likelihood have been a lot less narrow. I personally blame peoples' weapon-worship.

[Swordslinger]

The only time I've found people really care about what they're using is if they're making a clone character. If you're making a Drizz't clone, you obviously care that your guy is dual wielding scimitars.

If you're just a regular original design, you end up using whatever you find, and later you end up being known as the wielder of Frostcleaver.

[K]

Doesn't this argument devolve back to the old argument that PCs shouldn't get vertical power advancement?

I mean, the only issue with not dropping magic hoopaks or letting people enchant their own hoopaks is that you need the bonuses on them to stay on the RNG.

If you aren't worried about the RNG, "magic" and "nonmagic" is just the difference between flavor and options. I mean, the Sword or Omens shoots laser beams, but if you are just swording someone the laser-shooting ability is completely unused and unnecessary. Just carry your old damn hoopak and kill monsters with it and use a magic amulet instead of a magic sword to shoot lase beams when you need laser beams.

[Orion]

I'm more sympathetic than Lago is to the desire to retain a signature weapon. Weapon are props and they're cool and even if you're disintegrating a mountain with a single gesture, gesturing with a staff feels enough different from gesturing with a sword or a wang that I can see why someone would care.

But ultimately I think I have to side with Lago, because I want the setting to have sacred and legendary things in it and I want those things to be desirable. I once played a game where we spent several session searching for the legendary Jade Yari. Once we found it an argument commenced between the party and the spear's guardian concerning who was most worthy/desirous of the spear. The character who won was a nobleman who had previously never used anything but his bow and katana, but he stopped carrying his katana in order to be worthy of the Yari, a move which cost him some of his status in samurai circles but marked him out as a holy man. If we had found the legendary Jade Yari and then transferred its powers to his old katana I would have been genuinely offended.

[shadzar]

Doesn't this argument devolve back to the old argument that PCs shouldn't get vertical power advancement?

I mean, the only issue with not dropping magic hoopaks or letting people enchant their own hoopaks is that you need the bonuses on them to stay on the RNG.

If you aren't worried about the RNG, "magic" and "nonmagic" is just the difference between flavor and options. I mean, the Sword or Omens shoots laser beams, but if you are just swording someone the laser-shooting ability is completely unused and unnecessary. Just carry your old damn hoopak and kill monsters with it and use a magic amulet instead of a magic sword to shoot lase beams when you need laser beams.

Final Fantasy kind of solved the effect problem, but left the magical upgrade problem in a sense...

buster swords could hold different amount of Materia, but it was the Materia itself that conferred properties onto the sword. some anime, MAR i think, did this also. it lets you keep the weapon, but each weapon type then had a limit to the number of "enchantments" that could be placed on it.

this sort of thing would really solve the whole issue with a specific type of weapon, but the limit on enhancements would still factor in with things like a hoopak probably physically holding more enhancing gems than a rapier could.

you just have those "special" weapons you have to find that CAN take enhancements, and normal people use regular old fashioned weapons. that would prevent those magic gems or Materia from being commonplace, or you have weapons everyone uses with holes to plug in Materia, but so few people have them, you would have to wonder why weapons are still made to accept them?

3rd for example had special weapons that could be enchanted...masterwork, and normal couldnt. so if you think like that the Materia concept from Final Fantasy could more easily fit into D&D for weapon upgrades, special abilities, etc. in such a world, the problems of a specific weapon or specialized weapon would be less problematic.

Bob the fighter: we found another power enhancing gem, but i cant use another.
Fuchs the rapier fop: i need one for my sword can i have it?

all the Materia would fit into any weapon and upgrade them, and there wouldnt be any "weapon drops" that would matter. all longswords ARE just longswords, only specially made ones can be enhanced, so magical treasure comes in the form of the magical gem that gives the weapon power to begin with.