Weapon Styles, Basket Weaving, and Concept Obsolesence

[shadzar]

Hey, shadzar, is one plus one equal to two?

one apple and one orange? two what? fruits? it isnt two apples or two oranges.

"one plus one" doesnt look like "two" to me.

"one" + "one" = "oneone" or 2one, again doesnt look like "two"

numerically expressed values?

|one| + |one| = |two| absolutely

[shadzar]

Buying items was in fact, compared to going on a quest to kill someone to get the item. Both of which were said to be something that was selfish of a player.

1. you cannot compare buying an item to going to seek a specific item.

one involves nothing more than a Magic Mart, which for many removes the internal consistency of the game, in which case if magic is so readily available, then it isnt special.

vis a vis:

Buying Magical Items

As player characters earn more money and begin facing greater dangers, some of them will begin wondering where they can buy magical items. Using 20th-century, real-world economics, they will figure there must be stores that buy and sell such goods. Naturally they will want to find and patronize such stores. However, no magical stores exist.
Before the DM goes rushing off to create magical item shops, consider the player characters and their behavior. Just how often do player characters sell those potions and scrolls they find? Cast in a sword +1? Unload a horn of blasting or a ring of free action?

More often than not, player characters save such items. Certainly they don't give away one-use items. One can never have too many potions of healing or scrolls with extra spells. Sooner or later the character might run out. Already have a sword +1? Maybe a henchman or hireling could use such a weapon (and develop a greater respect for his master). Give up the only horn of blasting the party has? Not very likely at all.
It is reasonable to assume that if the player characters aren't giving up their goods, neither are any non-player characters. And if adventurers aren't selling their finds, then there isn't enough trade in magical items to sustain such a business.

Even if the characters do occasionally sell a magical item, setting up a magic shop is not a good idea. Where is the sense of adventure in going into a store and buying a sword +1? Haggling over the price of a wand? Player characters should feel like adventurers, not merchants or greengrocers.
Consider this as well: If a wizard or priest can buy any item he needs, why should he waste time attempting to make the item himself? Magical item research is an important role-playing element in the game, and opening a magic emporium kills it. There is a far different sense of pride on the player's part when using a wand his character has made, or found after perilous adventure, as opposed to one he just bought.

Finally, buying and trading magic presumes a large number of magical items in the society. This lessens the DM's control over the whole business. Logically-minded players will point out the inconsistency of a well-stocked magic shop in a campaign otherwise sparse in such rewards.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

yes i prefer and quote 2e because:
a. its more legible than 1e books were.
b. i can copy paste from the CD-ROM.
c. it isnt fully of shitty handicaps for stupid people unable to use their imagination to play the game such as "skills" and "feats" that are mental crutches to being a good roleplayer.
d. the above doesnt have shitloads of unnecessary mechanical bullshit bonuses for everything. (ala Christmas Tree)

2. Selfish was that a DM "owes" the player something for the player to maintain the aesthetic of their character. the DM is not the employee of the group, and the DMs duties do NOT include babysitting.

3. people can quest for an item that they have HEARD about, in order to try to find it. odds are the recent Monte L&L will come into play such that it might not be an easy task to acquire it and may result in death, but that is the CHOICE OF THE PLAYERS how important that item is, and a DM should not pull punches in harder encounters in order to facilitate the views expunged in #2 that the DM is their babysitter.

4. if you want it, make it your damn self, as rules have always existed for that.

5. treasure is being discussed in this lgiht because it is the view of those needing a babysitter, that the DM should be giving them things to allow the continuation of their aesthetic design, but treasure is NOT some present to the players for begin a "good boy" or "good girl" and behaving; but a reward for overcoming obstacles, and, AND that treasure should be internally consistent with the world such that the DM creates. goblins wielding greataxes just so the players can get a greataxe break the 4th wall to much.

it IS a game, and it IS a storytelling device, but they must both work together. the moment one disrupts the other, the DM has failed; including by not limited to some magical rapier being wielded by a race in a region that has never seen or has no idea how to use a rapier, nor would have any reason for it to be in their lair where they keep the items they do NOT use themselves.

_____
the selfish players are the ones that are forcing the game and EVERYONE else in it to conform to their narrow aesthetic for just that ONE person.

"the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the ONE."

[Desdan_Mervolam]

the selfish players are the ones that are forcing the game and EVERYONE else in it to conform to their narrow aesthetic for just that ONE person.

Why? This keeps getting asserted but I don't get why.

Over the course of a campaign, you are going to get a lot of magic items, even in 1st and 2nd edition. (I'm going to stick with 3.5, as those are the books I have handy though). A 10th level party, assuming they've been playing consistently since 1st level, has owned on-average 80 magic items of various types and power-levels, to use, consume, and/or sell. A weapon based character only really needs to upgrade weapons a couple times between 1st and 10th level, and one of those times is probably just to switch up from the junk sword he or she started with to masterwork. So why is wanting two or three items(At most) out of 80 to be a specific weapon make me selfish?

[Username17]

And where the hell do you draw the line, anyway. What if I want to turn the Hand of Vecna into a Lawful Good Crossbow? What if I want to transform the Book of Vile Darkness into a Lawful Good magic helmet so my Paladin can use its powers without consequence?

For both of your examples, it has been said repeatedly actual artifacts can be exempted.

But in the long run, the Ax Master needs the Ax of the Dwarven Lords or some similarly powerful Ax. If you're admitting that world defining artifacts like the Ax of the Dwarven Lords shouldn't be converted into Crossbows or some shit, then you're admitting that the Ax Master concept has an expiration date. And that expiration date even according to you is the moment you get the Sword of Kas.

I'm just saying that expiration date is much earlier: the moment the Ax Master needs an Ax upgrade that he can't make himself and didn't start with. If you need the cooperation of the other players for your concept to advance, your concept is bad for the game. Because while the game gives you the right to vote for a course of action, it does not give you the right to have the course of action you voted for actually win.

-Username17

[shadzar]

the selfish players are the ones that are forcing the game and EVERYONE else in it to conform to their narrow aesthetic for just that ONE person.

Why? This keeps getting asserted but I don't get why.

Over the course of a campaign, you are going to get a lot of magic items, even in 1st and 2nd edition.

he problem is this false assertion right here, to begin with.

as i have said many times, there are things neglected to be explained with each new edition that comes out, but players are expected to know them even though the designers took it for granted that they would know them even being new. 4th removes this by retconning the entire game.

this includes play experience and example from previous players and DMs, in a variety of playstyles.

this gives you the ability to see from different points of view. in this case, the low-magic, glad you have anything kind of game that 1st and 2nd allowed, but 3rd doesnt...

(I'm going to stick with 3.5, as those are the books I have handy though). A 10th level party, assuming they've been playing consistently since 1st level, has owned on-average 80 magic items of various types and power-levels, to use, consume, and/or sell. A weapon based character only really needs to upgrade weapons a couple times between 1st and 10th level, and one of those times is probably just to switch up from the junk sword he or she started with to masterwork. So why is wanting two or three items(At most) out of 80 to be a specific weapon make me selfish?

this proves my point. the sheer excessive volume of magic items in comparison to that which could be done in previous editions. the dependency on them in 3rd is atrocious.

3rd has the golf bag, for melee and caster types alike, but it did NOT start it.

fighters of older editions would, with or without WPs, have a golfbag of weapons when they could afford them so that the conditions they met would let them more easily overcome it. sword in a scabbard, axe/bow on the back, dagger in your boot, and hammer on your belt...

wizards had wands of various sorts as well, if they could find them, and for treasure a wizards wand wa much better than a magic weapon, because that meant your wizard was able to keep you form needing the cleric more often, THUS preventing the "15 minute workday".

a wand was much more prized treasure for THE GROUP, than a weapon for a fighter or thief.

a wand without charges was still a good trophy.

when 3rd came out it changed MANY a philosophy including the tools in your toolbox. the character no longer needed to be adaptable because the expectations on WBL and such meant they didnt need to think anything out, just purchase the right multipurpose tool and only have one. the swiss-army weapon with fire, ice, +5, stunning, subdaul, etc all in one.

it CAN be done by WBL, and that is where things fell apart. people no longer liked the golfbag of weapons, and really didnt need them since a quick walk down to the local Magic Mart meant they could pick up anything in their flavor.

but the problem then lies in that treasure is NOT obtained form the Magic Mart. which means if you use Magic Mart, then logically you would only give coins and gems as treasure and jsut let the players buy their own magic items with the treasure, but even then to players that "treasure" seems hollow.

some would like it, but dont respect or even observe it is bad for the game, even though they CAN already do it in ANY edition IF their group saw fit to do so.

like with most minmaxxing, the chosing of a singular weapon either by focus, specialization, or some stange kit/PrC/etc means you are less versatile to the group. your need for this weapon is a penalty to the group to have you, the character and/or player, than to have someone else that isnt so constrained in ability to function OUTSIDE of their "comfort zone". when done right it CAN add to the story, but for the majority of players, they are NOT good enough to handle this.

it is like giving a younger person a screwdriver and letting them assemble something with it, and when they can handle it well enough and mature with the tool, then later handing them a power-drill.

first before you can work inside the confines of the singular focus or specialized weapon, you need ot be able to make the concept work, by being adaptable.

most players cannot handle this tough task of making that singular weapon work, and WILL cause problems, so it is discouraged; and rightfully should be, as the norm.

even with such a strict weapon dependency on the character, the ability to adapt must be present so that you do NOT become a disruptive player due to the fact your singular focus on a particular weapon doesnt cause the other players to lose fun because of your aesthetic.

this is why it is considered selfish, because most people cannot step outside of their aesthetic, as has been shown in recent threads, to be able to give up a part of their character (self sacrifice) for the group or the game.

so...disruptive player behavior must be curtailed by the DM, through means within the game, including but not limited to the type of treasure given for an encounter TO THE GROUP.

[Chamomile]

Is anyone actually arguing that having your entire class be based around a single weapon is a good idea? My position is just that I should be able to define my character's aesthetic unless there is a compelling story reason to change it.

[shadzar]

Is anyone actually arguing that having your entire class be based around a single weapon is a good idea? My position is just that I should be able to define my character's aesthetic unless there is a compelling story reason to change it.

the problem is, with D&D at least.. it isnt for making stories...it is a game that you can later tell stories about, but not a storyteller game. White Wolf, makes the storyteller games.

you want a game that offers no difference in weapon, and so long as you have one is all that matters. have you tried 4th edition? that is as close as you get with "D&D".

the problem many people have is that D&D isnt meant for allowing you to BE the Gray Mouser, but to be in an adventure similar to his.

being so confined to a weapon as to call it an aesthetic of the character IS the problem, when the game itself is made such that you MUST change weapons through the coure of it.

and NO D&D does not ened to change in order to allow simple-minded character ideas such that a weapon is an aesthetic.

there are OTHER games for that, so go seek them out if that is what you desire, or use D&D with YOUR group that way, rather than try to change it for everyone who doesnt want that foolish crap in their game.

[Username17]

Is anyone actually arguing that having your entire class be based around a single weapon is a good idea?

Yes. That is what this argument is about. People are saying that it is OK for a character class to be a "Sword Master". Lago and I disagree.

My position is just that I should be able to define my character's aesthetic unless there is a compelling story reason to change it.

Well, that does not sound super different from Lago or my position. My point is that as a player you do not have a one hundred percent effective vote on the direction of story, and thus any character option that requires the story to never give you a compelling reason to change your aesthetic choices is incompatible with the concept of cooperative story telling.

Sometimes your character finds a powerful artifact hammer or gets an arm chopped off. It's cooperative storytelling, you can't rule that sort of thing out. So "Sword Master" or "Glaive Master" are not appropriate character classes at basically any level.

-Username17

[Chamomile]

Sometimes your character finds a powerful artifact hammer or gets an arm chopped off. It's cooperative storytelling, you can't rule that sort of thing out. So "Sword Master" or "Glaive Master" are not appropriate character classes at basically any level.

-Username17

About the only thing I can agree shouldn't be changeable is artifacts.

Unless the item is of artifact level importance to the campaign setting, it literally does not matter what form it takes.

Once again, Excalibur is a fucking artifact. Sure, you don't change that.

I think we've already established that no one wants Mjolnir reforged into a halberd. But if we're talking about some random frost hammer that no one cares about, how is the game better if you do not let players take that frost hammer and reforge it into a frost sword or spear or pizza saw? The narrative can easily support reforging weapons (you'd have to bend over backwards a bit to find a reason why that couldn't happen), the players will be happier because swords come with a lot of cultural weight and it makes perfect sense if you prefer your character using one of them, and the impact on game mechanics is negligible.

[DSMatticus]

People are saying that it is OK for a character class to be a "Sword Master".

Even though it's not relevant to the current set of objections, I'd like to differentiate between class and concept. Unless your system is really big on weaponry detail, there's probably no reason to mechanically differentiate between "sword dude" and "axe dude," and they'll end up using the same mechanics or very similar mechanics. But they could mean very different concepts of the character.

and thus any character option that requires the story to never give you a compelling reason to change your aesthetic choices

And this only happens if the mechanics of the game serve in some way to put you on a magic item treadmill where you are constantly looking for the latest greatest sharp magic thing. If you are as powerful at 'swording things' when you have a mundane sword as a legendary sword, then not finding a magic sword is a bummer, but it's not a concept-breaker and you can keep on being the guy with the sword your entire career without requiring any concessions from anyone at the table. We have like two threads going right now talking about vertical/horizontal advancement and magic items and whatever, and the problem where you have to force the DM to give you a continual supply of ever-upgrading swords to be a swordmaster only actually happens if you make items a part of vertical advancement.

Now, you can say "I want that," at which point we have to say "fuck you, goodbye" to weapon-specific concepts (mechanical or fluff-wise). But just slowing down the magic item acquisition rate or even making magic items completely horizontal power makes the concept of 'swordmaster' a lot more robust to the random loot tables.

[Fuchs]

Yes. That is what this argument is about. People are saying that it is OK for a character class to be a "Sword Master". Lago and I disagree.

My stance is that it's ok for a character to use a sword/staff/axe as his chosen weapon. Not that that is all he is.

Lago and Frank are stuck on "NOOOOO! You HAVE to use the weapons we roll up! No trading, no transferring, no making your own, no having them made!"

For the record: I type up all what happens in my games, and make rendered illustrations for it. I don't need a list on my character sheet to remember what happened 10 years ago.

[Username17]

Yes. That is what this argument is about. People are saying that it is OK for a character class to be a "Sword Master". Lago and I disagree.

My stance is that it's ok for a character to use a sword/staff/axe as his chosen weapon. Not that that is all he is.

Those aren't different. If you "choose" to wield a sword irregardless of what actually happens in the campaign, that is you demanding that you get sword upgrades that are equivalent in overall power with whatever the fuck it is that the story is generating. And you don"t have the right to make that demand. You have the right to cast your vote for that, but if you are overruled by the table and you end up going to Krynn and the top end weapon is a lance, then whatever swords you have won't be competitive and that is that.

Or to put it another way: imagine that your chosen weapon is a katana, because you think it looks awesome. But you are adventuring in Greyhawk, and there are no katana dealerships of note that you will encounter for the next twelve levels or so. It doesn't matter how much you want a badass katana, the rest of the partz isn't down for going to Shufang, you don't get one.

Now imagine that what the player wants is something that is outright fringe: like a laser blaster or a Doomesque BFG. Does the DM have an obligation to make that available? Fuck no. As with any other weapon: you have the right to ask for it, you don't have the right to get it if there is a compelling story reason why you can't (whether that is can't right now or can't ever).

Your entire stance is based on personally demanding narrative rights that no individual actually has.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

Your entire stance is based on personally assuming that "This character uses a sword" is not an allowed character trait.

Given how many characters in literature and movies are just that - people using one weapon - you're wrong.

As far as a katana in Greyhawk goes: If there are no katana shops there as the GM I'll either create a side story for the character that centers around tracking down 5 katanas stolen from Shufang and brought to Greyhawk, which he is sworn to recover, or give him an ancestral katana that levels with him.

And of course there will be an understanding in the group that regularily one will go on side quests, be it to recover a katana for the samurai, or save the sister of the knight, or foil the plot aimed at the bard's father, a Lord at the court.

See? It's absurdly easy to accomodate weapon users.

As far as fringe weapons go: If the weapon is not allowed it is not allowed at all. But if as a GM I allow a weapon, it will be supported too - there will be magic versions available one way or the other for the player character.

I don't GM to shoot down player's wishes and their fun. I GM so players can play the character they want whenever possible. And giving them magic swords instead of axes is very, very easy.

[Seerow]

But in the long run, the Ax Master needs the Ax of the Dwarven Lords or some similarly powerful Ax. If you're admitting that world defining artifacts like the Ax of the Dwarven Lords shouldn't be converted into Crossbows or some shit, then you're admitting that the Ax Master concept has an expiration date. And that expiration date even according to you is the moment you get the Sword of Kas.

You're however making a big assumption in that the game ever ends up with you getting the Sword of Kas. No, really. In every edition of D&D ever Artifacts were basically plot points that explicitly get dropped by the DM for some specific purpose, and typically the DM is advised to find some way to get the artifact out of the campaign as fast as possible once the artifact's plot use has ended.

So if the Sword of Kas shows up, and it has to be used for the Story, then fine. Hell depending on the reasons Axe Master is Axe Master, he may even be the one to use it (it depends on if he just really likes axes, or has some personal issue against swords). But you're implying the second the Sword of Kas shows up, every person in the party expects to have their own artifact, which is something I would never assume for any D&D campaign ever. If you DO assume that, you are playing a very different game, or at least claiming you do to attempt to make a point.

I'm just saying that expiration date is much earlier: the moment the Ax Master needs an Ax upgrade that he can't make himself and didn't start with. If you need the cooperation of the other players for your concept to advance, your concept is bad for the game. Because while the game gives you the right to vote for a course of action, it does not give you the right to have the course of action you voted for actually win.

First, I've known very few groups who would outright say "No, we're not going to take a short break for you to go buy/trade for a weapon upgrade", which is something you've previously listed as cooperation required and thus bad.

Second, it doesn't NEED to be cooperative, even by your very broad definition. Except that you've also shot down every other possible solution as something that is bad. Ultimately your reasoning seems to boil down more to "I don't like this, and I love random loot that I want the players to use" than anything actually really wrong.

[RadiantPhoenix]

"I use swords," is not always an option for your character, nor should it be (although it might usually be an option).

"I use and make swords," is.

[Chamomile]

You have the right to cast your vote for that, but if you are overruled by the table and you end up going to Krynn and the top end weapon is a lance, then whatever swords you have won't be competitive and that is that.

I think we've already established that no one wants Mjolnir reforged into a halberd.

Pay attention.

[fectin]

I don't understand why Inigo Montoya is a bad character.

You can make a fair point that he is not a high level character, but that generalizes to basically all DMFs, as Lago has pointed out repeatedly. Since lack of weapon selectivity still doesn't allow a high level character, I don't understand how that's any kind of indictment of the swordmaster (or halberdier, or whatever).

[Username17]

As far as a katana in Greyhawk goes: If there are no katana shops there as the GM I'll either create a side story for the character that centers around tracking down 5 katanas stolen from Shufang and brought to Greyhawk, which he is sworn to recover, or give him an ancestral katana that levels with him.

And of course there will be an understanding in the group that regularily one will go on side quests, be it to recover a katana for the samurai, or save the sister of the knight, or foil the plot aimed at the bard's father, a Lord at the court.

And if the other players choose to not go on those side quests?

That's the core problem with your whole position. The other players also have a vote. If they vote to follow up other leads or do side quests that develop other plotlines, then the fact that the MC threw out some concessions to allow some magical katanas in Greyhawk doesn't even matter.

As a player, you have the right to ask the DM to include ways for your character to get a katana. You have the right to make a Gather Information check or some shit to find out in character what some of those ways might be. You have the right to ask the other players to go do those side quests so you can get them. But you do not have the right to have the other players agree. If they vote to do something else instead: no katana for you.

As far as fringe weapons go: If the weapon is not allowed it is not allowed at all. But if as a GM I allow a weapon, it will be supported too - there will be magic versions available one way or the other for the player character.

In Greyhawk there are laser pistols. It is actually a post apocalyptic setting and there is relic tech. Also there are alien spaceships. Really. If you really want a laser pistol, you can actually track down the crash site in the Barrier Peaks and go in and get one. But that dungeon, and indeed the entire plotline it is based on, offend many players. When you ask the other players to go on an expedition to the Barrier Peaks, it is not unlikely that the other players will tell you to go fuck yourself. Because even though the Greyhawk campaign setting actually has a bunch of sci-fi comedy easter eggs in canon, many players do not like them and prefer to play the setting as pure sword and sorcery.

The laser pistol is one of the best pieces of Rogue equipment in the game, it looks cool as hell and, and it lets you be a pistol packing outlaw like in the Wild West or Prohibition. That's legitimately awesome and I don't blame players for wanting one. But it clashes thematically with most of the rest of the setting in ways too obvious to need mentioning. If the other players tell you that no they won't spend a session or two running around an abandoned space ship fighting robots and aliens so that you can spend the rest of the campaign shooting demons in the face with a laser pistol like it was Warhammer 40K, then you have to accept that. That's democracy, and sometimes you lose.

Any demand for any specific weapon is a demand that may or may not be granted. Because the other players all want to do various shit too. And they may or may not choose to accommodate you. If you are in Ravenloft adventures, it will be a long ass time before the next time you see a store that sells magic weapons. If you are in Dark Sun, it may actually rain before the next time you see a metal sword for sale. And if you get the DM to tell you where you can get a specific item you want, the other players may choose to simply not go there.

True story: one time K was in a game I was running and he wanted the group to go get flying mounts in order to cut the travel time in the second half of the campaign. He tracked down where such mounts could be acquired and the next time their travels took them to within striking distance of that area, he suggested to the party that they make a detour. The party voted: and they decided not to go. Everyone who voted against had their reasons. One guy actually didn't want to have a flying mount because his character concept walked around. Another player just wanted to do another adventure immediately next because that part of the plot really interested him. Still another player didn't care because she already had access to a summonable flyer for herself. But the point was and is: you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. It's a cooperative, and therefore democratically generated story. And no matter how cool a you think a story element or an item or whatever you want to introduce to the story is, if the other players say no they say no and you have to live with that.

-Username17

[Username17]

TP

[Username17]

TP

[Krusk]

Torn on the issue. Clarifying questions on peoples opinions.

I find the sword of omens. I'm an axe dude. Can I...

Sell the Sword at the next town and buy an axe?
Barter the sword for an axe?
Give the sword to a dwarven lord to increase favor?

In each of these scenarios, does the axe have to be objectivley better/worse/the same as the sword?

Personally I have always ran with "You get what makes sense, that what is there tough", but I also let people sell for full price at one or more buyers. (there may only be one buyer in the setting, but as the PCs usually have teleport pretty early [3.5] thats not a big deal). If the PCs want to hang onto the sword of omens, and put it on the treasure wall thats cool, and if they want to sell it and buy an axe, well thats cool too.

Ice Demons have Frost glaives, I don't care if you somehow siphon the frost power onto your sword after beating them. But you get a frost glaive, not a sword.

[CapnTthePirateG]

Have we dicussed just giving the katana users "craft katana" so they can make level approprate katanas yet? There a problem with that?

[RadiantPhoenix]

Have we dicussed just giving the katana users "craft katana" so they can make level approprate katanas yet? There a problem with that?

I'm just saying that expiration date is much earlier: the moment the Ax Master needs an Ax upgrade that he can't make himself and didn't start with.

(Bold mine)

Forge Lore: A 7th level Fighter can produce magical weapons and equipment as if he had a Caster Level equal to his ranks in Craft.

I don't think there's a problem with it, and it sounds like Frank doesn't think there's a problem either.

[Fuchs]

If the group doesn't want to go on side quests then I can easily make the katanas stolen part of the main quests by making the thieves involved with the BBEG.

[Username17]

If the group doesn't want to go on side quests then I can easily make the katanas stolen part of the main quests by making the thieves involved with the BBEG.

So after the players decide to not go quest for a treasure, as the DM you decide that you'll give it to them anyway?

Congratulations: you just managed to find a way to make the katana character even more poisonous to the group dynamic. His very presence apparently makes all decisions made by the collective of players completely meaningless.

-Username17