Weapon Styles, Basket Weaving, and Concept Obsolesence

[hyzmarca]

Funny, I thought the ludicrous part was the idea that a party of 4 wizards are supposed to cream themselves over a pile of magical axes. They're magic items, right? And all magic items are awesome to everyone!!!1!!

That is pretty ludicrous. Among Fuchs' heisenbergian arguments is the idea that if a group of wizards goes and beats up some orcs or dwarves or something that have magical axes, that they should get as much benefit, and indeed the same type of benefit as had they fought an enemy necromancer or illusionist.

According to Fuchs, regardless of what the opposition is or what they are depicted as using during the actual battle, that "through trade, reforging or selling and buying" the players should end up in exactly the same place equipment wise. That our team of wizards will end up with the same assortment of headbands of intellect, cloaks of resistance, and metamagic rods whether today's opposition was Drow mages, Goblin berserkers, or griffins.

So in your D&D campaign, what is the non-ludicrous thing for a party of 4 wizards to do with a bunch of magical axes, if "trade, reforging or selling and buying" is out? Just give them away, count it as zero treasure and move on?

The logical solution would be to equip their minions with magic axes.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Telekinesis?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Funny, I thought the ludicrous part was the idea that a party of 4 wizards are supposed to cream themselves over a pile of magical axes. They're magic items, right? And all magic items are awesome to everyone!!!1!!

This kind of retrospective regret is so pathetic that it's actually laughable.

So, hogarth, which fucks over players more over a fifteen-encounter adventure:

A party of wizards who roll for treasure every encounter but only two out of six possible treasure parcels (some of them having NOTHING in them) has something that the party wants?

A party of wizards who roll for treasure every five encounters and there's always treasure that they want?

Most people would take the first deal. Seriously. On average you'll actually end up with more treasure. Does that mean that every treasure parcel they have will excite them? No. But when the adventure is over they'll still more likely than not have more treasure pieces that they care about than the second group.

Moreover, it's also been shown that people react more strongly to unpredictable reinforcement schedules than predictable ones. Even if the first set of treasure acquisition was in aggregate equal to or even slightly less of a payout than the second one it would still increase happiness.

[Damocles]

Alot of people pro-random loot seem opposed to the MMO mentality of gaining loot. Except, it pretty much works the same way in 3rd/4th.

In an MMO, there is only a certain number of things that can drop at a certain level. Better stuff drops from bosses.

In DnD, there are only a certain number of things that can drop at a certain level, most DMs put better stuff on their bosses.

In an MMO, these things drop randomly, so if you dont get what you want, go fight more until you do.

In DnD, you seem to be defending the randomness of table rolls. Since they're random, go fight more until you get what you want.

Hm.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I'm not for the idea that bosses should have an exclusive payout that random encounters in the woods won't attain. If you make a +6 Holy Avenger a possible drop only for boss encounters then people will snooze through the treasure payout of taking out ten hill giants. Granted bosses generally will because named characters get more named equipment than redshirts but people shouldn't be able to predict the outcome of the treasure roll that much.

Secondly, I don't think that treasure rolls should be tied to fights at all. They generally are because fights make a convenient stopping point for a game both in the 'time to go home' or 'cliffhanger of the current adventure' sense. But people should jolly well just get mysterious gifts from the Harpers or find a corpse in the middle of the desert or get a ridiculously good deal at a bazaar by someone who didn't know that they were selling a magical doodad or find a down-on-his-luck noble who's willing to sell his family heirloom for an influx of cash cash. Even if the DM rolls up random treasure ahead of time.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Now that said, I think that there should be a mechanic where players can submit a list of possible treasure drops that the DM randomly rolls up.

Not because I think it will improve gameplay, because it won't, but because it improves sales. Players trying to manipulate the treasure spread by not buying certain books (to decrease the chance of rolling something they don't want) reduces sales. But this is one of those points when what's good for business isn't what's good for games, like sexy artwork or alignment debates.

[Orion]

Every single item that drops in my games gets a one-sentence physical description noting what culture created it, what it's made of, and the symbolic connection between its design and magic ability. The idea that most items should be "boring" staggers me.

[echoVanguard]

But this is one of those points when what's good for business isn't what's good for games, like sexy artwork or alignment debates.

That doesn't seem to make sense, Lago. Alignment debates aren't good for business, and sexy artwork isn't bad for games.

echo

[hogarth]

Funny, I thought the ludicrous part was the idea that a party of 4 wizards are supposed to cream themselves over a pile of magical axes. They're magic items, right? And all magic items are awesome to everyone!!!1!!

This kind of retrospective regret is so pathetic that it's actually laughable.

So, hogarth, which fucks over players more over a fifteen-encounter adventure:

A party of wizards who roll for treasure every encounter but only two out of six possible treasure parcels (some of them having NOTHING in them) has something that the party wants?

A party of wizards who roll for treasure every five encounters and there's always treasure that they want?

Most people would take the first deal. Seriously.

Well, duh. Because (a) the first option has an average of 5 useful items per 15 encounters and the second has an average of 3 useful items per 5 encounters (so it's a retarded comparison) and (b) in the first option you sell the rest of the vendor trash and get at least something out of it. But in Frank's world, you're not even allowed to sell your vendor trash. It's just trash.

[Lago PARANOIA]

What I was getting at is that it's trivially easy to construct schedules where even though you'll get a load of vendor trash more often than stuff you want you can still end up with more good stuff in the end than a staggered but 100% good stuff schedule.

So anyone who goes 'I'm sad that this opportunity didn't give me what I want!' is just being a greedy, short-sighted dimwit. Seriously, there will be more chances to get what you want so getting all crybaby because a particular treasure pile could've dropped a Staff of the Magi but dropped an Excalibur is ridiculous; not only do you have to be metagaming to realize that there was a behind-the-scene-chance that King Arthur might have had a SotM on him after all, but you also have to be so fucking myopic to not realize that with a tiny bit of metagaming on your part you'd realize Percival or Mordred or Merlin might have the staff. If you're doing schedule (a) then a staff of the Magi will probably drop sooner than schedule (b), so complaining that treasure haul #3 of 15 dropped nothing but axes for your wizards is just retarded.

It's a very specific amount of WSoD and mechanics dissection and one that I have no tolerance for since it's driven solely by revisionist entitlement and there's no way to rationally engage that.

[Ice9]

Indeed, when my players play 4 Wizards, that goes back in time and completely erases all physical weapons from existence.

The very idea that a party of people who don't use axes could come across some kind of dwarf or orc, or something, that uses an axe, is fucking ludicrous.

Funny, I thought the ludicrous part was the idea that a party of 4 wizards are supposed to cream themselves over a pile of magical axes. They're magic items, right? And all magic items are awesome to everyone!!!1!!

That is pretty ludicrous. Among Fuchs' heisenbergian arguments is the idea that if a group of wizards goes and beats up some orcs or dwarves or something that have magical axes, that they should get as much benefit, and indeed the same type of benefit as had they fought an enemy necromancer or illusionist.

According to Fuchs, regardless of what the opposition is or what they are depicted as using during the actual battle, that "through trade, reforging or selling and buying" the players should end up in exactly the same place equipment wise. That our team of wizards will end up with the same assortment of headbands of intellect, cloaks of resistance, and metamagic rods whether today's opposition was Drow mages, Goblin berserkers, or griffins.

And yeah, the idea is ludicrous. And while he trumpets it as a way to keep players happy, it's completely disempowering, and removes all joy from the acquisition of loot.

-Username17

Ok, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and assume you are being purposefully disingenuous, by intentionally conflating "changing the physical weapon type" with "changing what the magic properties are", even though it has been stated about a dozen fucking times that's not what anyone is talking about. Because the alternative is that you're a dumbass who can't read.

But back on the the subject - yes, a pile of axes isn't particularly useful to a group of Wizards. The options are pretty much:
* Give them away as a gift.
* Trade them for a favor or thing.
* Put them on the wall of the trophy room and forget about them.

Although IIRC, in the previous thread, Lago was advocating "stop casting spells and become a warrior, because magic items trump everything." If that's still your position, then I have no interest in it.

[Ice9]

So anyone who goes 'I'm sad that this opportunity didn't give me what I want!' is just being a greedy, short-sighted dimwit. Seriously, there will be more chances to get what you want so getting all crybaby because a particular treasure pile could've dropped a Staff of the Magi but dropped an Excalibur is ridiculous; not only do you have to be metagaming to realize that there was a behind-the-scene-chance that King Arthur might have had a SotM on him after all, but you also have to be so fucking myopic to not realize that with a tiny bit of metagaming on your part you'd realize Percival or Mordred or Merlin might have the staff. If you're doing schedule (a) then a staff of the Magi will probably drop sooner than schedule (b), so complaining that treasure haul #3 of 15 dropped nothing but axes for your wizards is just retarded.

You're being rather inconsistent here. First, your position was "magic items are so important that you should use anything your find, no matter what it looks like". And also "magic items are so special that being able to reforge them would ruin the game". But now, you appear to be saying that it's totally fine and desirable to be tossing 75% of the items you find in the trash heap, because you're raking them in so fast it doesn't matter.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Although IIRC, in the previous thread, Lago was advocating "stop casting spells and become a warrior, because magic items trump everything." If that's still your position, then I have no interest in it.

I also said that if Harry Potter came across a +5 Lightsaber we'd expect him to take up a new career in melee ass-kicking but if Dr. Strange came across the same thing he might just end up using it as a backup weapon.

The reason why I support big item drops at low level is because that's when their effects are more strongly felt. If you don't think that dropping a One Ring or a suit of Iron Man armor should be happening for level 1 parties then so be it, but if you think that they should then they very well should derail most if not all character concepts for the foreseeable future because otherwise they weren't all that big of magical items, now were they?

However the thing to keep in mind is that if Harry Potter's player decides not to go down the exciting and unpaved road of being a lasersword ass-kicker then it's not like he suddenly starts sucking. He continues to perform as if he never got the sword at all and his character concept is preserved. It's extra lame if Harry Potter pulls the power orbs out of the Sword of Omens to put into his wand for an extra plus and makes the exercise entirely pointless. There's no story, no drama, no surprise in that. Harry Potter just starts doing the same thing he always did but at improved effectiveness. While this is important, if Harry Potter was kicking ass without a wand he's not going to be much more happier going from a +0 to a +6 wand as opposed to a +0 to a +2 wand. So let's not even bother dropping items like that.

[Orion]

I've actually had this happen. In our OA campaign the artifact Jade Yari dropped and none of the party Samurai wanted it, so our Sorcerer actually became an Eldritch Knight explicitly so he could use the Yari. That was awesome and memorable because it gave the character a turning point in his story arc, and because he had previously been so similar to our Wu Jen that he had no unique identity in the party. It was also a chance for Eldritch Knight to come out and actually be good because of the overpowered weapon, which was nice for those us disappointed in 3.0s gish options.

[Lago PARANOIA]

First, your position was "magic items are so important that you should use anything your find, no matter what it looks like"

Uh, no. If you have always-on flight at a low level due to your character concept, finding a magical carpet isn't going to do much for you.

What I said was that if weapon type was the overriding concern as to why you wouldn't want to discard your +2 vanilla sword for a +5 flaming battleaxe and the game didn't have weapon specialization in it then fuck you. You can give it to someone else in exchange for next dibs--and if that doesn't work out then you can accept that you're basket-weaving in much the same way as someone who refuses to wear any armor that isn't made out of bone or picking up a landbound animal companion that isn't an ungulate is basket weaving.

But now, you appear to be saying that it's totally fine and desirable to be tossing 75% of the items you find in the trash heap, because you're raking them in so fast it doesn't matter.

Thanks for isolating my argument I made to hogarth where I oversimplified it to stop that analogy sidetracking and then not realizing/caring that the oversimplification for that example doesn't apply to my beliefs in general. That's totally not stupid and/or deceitful of you.

[RadiantPhoenix]

someone who refuses to wear any armor that isn't made out of bone or picking up a landbound animal companion that isn't an ungulate is basket weaving.

(bold mine)
Minor nitpick: I think you meant 'pick up', not, 'picking up'

[Dean]

Actually, you're the one who is advocating clown suits. You're doing it in two ways.

First, as you'll recall from your original tirade about clown suits with bonnets and ragged trousers, that getup was defined by the top tier equipment. Since the people fapping to reforging as a solution are in fact not suggesting that it be applied to top tier equipment, that particular "clown suit" issue is completely unaffected. You are coming up with a way for peoples' outfits to remain completely static until they get top tier gear, at which point they go 100% clown suit.

Secondly: why the fuck do you think the other players are voting to not go on a side quest so that you can wield a level appropriate double ax? Sure it might be because there are seven people at the table with various ideas of what should be done next and the guy who wants to start training griffins as the next side quest is way more eloquent than you. But it also might be because the other people at the table think that double axes are fucking retarded and are more than a little bit embarrassed every time you talk about them. In short: if you can't get the other players to enable your weapon addiction by agreeing to undergo the sidequests to upgrade the weapon of your dreams, it is very possible that it is because you are trying to wear a clown suit and the other players don't want you to.

In short: there is absolutely nothing in your proposals that make clown suits any less likely, and indeed handing out democratic overrides to players reduces checks and balances that would otherwise occur naturally to keep clown suits in check.

-Username17

This is blatantly 100% incorrect. Saying that the reforging position has done nothing to make clown suits less likely is provably incorrect. Namely it would perfectly prevent clown suits for 19 levels of gameplay. Most games are not played until 20th level, most aren't even played after 10th. Even 20th level parties will still look fine with an occasional item about that might break the characters aesthetic but that's fine because that item will also be awesome and thus even more noteworthy. Saying otherwise is making the claims that A) All parties play at the highest levels and B) All parties acquire all of a setting's artifacts. That is silly.

Additionally by choosing what gear cannot be forged you are not choosing what gear can be "interesting and important", you are choosing what gear is meant to be world altering and exemplary. A Holy Avenger is a unique and interesting weapon but so is the Sword of Kas. A Holy Avenger can be crafted while a Sword of Kas cannot. Item traction is a separate quantity from item crafting rules. Just because a character could theoretically make a Holy Avenger does not make them less interesting or exciting to a Paladin. I believe that cool weapons will remain cool weapons and this really will have nothing to do with reforging or crafting rules at all.

[Mask_De_H]

Okay, call me stupid or tell me to go suck a barrel of cocks or whatever, but I honestly don't know what the main argument is anymore. I just see everyone yelling past each other like assholes (which is TGD standard procedure).

So, this is the gist I got so far:

Characters should be allowed to choose what they want their character to do, as long as it doesn't break the verisimilitude of the setting (I'm going to change the Black Blade of the Earth into the Black Studded Dildo of the Earth because I'm a Dildomaster) or has a chance of getting shot down by other players (Fuck going swimming with Mermaids, Timmy wants his polar bear).

It's not okay for a character to be focused on a singular weapon or narrow ideal, unless they are able to produce/fulfill it themselves without taking away from other people's wants at the table (Samurai, Soulborn).

Only relying on random treasure is ideal because it doesn't favor a single player's wants or desires over anyone else's (this is the one I'm having trouble parsing through the shitfits).

[RadiantPhoenix]

but that's fine because that item will also be awesome and thus even more noteworthy.

From this, we can conclude that it is perfectly acceptable to roll randomly for any magic item that is not a defining characteristic of the setting, because bullshit items are bullshit.

[Ice9]

It's extra lame if Harry Potter pulls the power orbs out of the Sword of Omens to put into his wand for an extra plus and makes the exercise entirely pointless.

Read my reply to Frank two posts above yours. TL;DR - you are either being intentionally deceitful or a fucking moron by repeatedly conflating switching weapon type with switching what a magic item does.

That's totally not stupid and/or deceitful of you.

Oh look, pot calling the kettle black.

And it isn't just a simplification, there actually is a conflict of position there between:
* Magic items are so special that you should use anything you find, and modifying it would ruin the awesomeness.
* You don't need a wish list because you're going to be getting big piles of items anyway, and you can just give or trade away the ones you don't want.

[Ice9]

Oh, BTW, non-arbitrary in-setting reason for enchantments to be transferable:

Enchantments are bound elementals/spirits/daemons. All of them. The simpler, less powerful ones may be powered by the spirit equivalent of a fish or lizard, not really sapient, just acting by rote. Then you go up through rat-like, dog-like, fully sapient, all the way up to the artifacts that have will and knowledge far beyond most who would wield them. Not necessarily a smooth progression either - you might have the odd fully intelligent spirit in a Ring of Sustenance or lizard-brained deurge powering a Mountain-Cleaver.

So, given this, it's possible to move the spirits around. They just need a suitable home, which for many of them just means a masterwork item of the appropriate type. For an artifact-level daemon - not so easy, you'll need something pretty special, assuming you can even gain control of it to begin with.

Boom, grand unified theory covering intelligent items, cursed items, artifacts, aligned items, why these things don't just get mass produced, and an oil well of potential plot hooks.

So - if you want to complain how transferring enchantments is bad flavor, I'd like to see your proposed setting flavor which is:
A) Better than this.
B) Incompatible with it.

[shadzar]

Oh, BTW, non-arbitrary in-setting reason for enchantments to be transferable:


So - if you want to complain how transferring enchantments is bad flavor, I'd like to see your proposed setting flavor which is:
A) Better than this.
B) Incompatible with it.

thats easy, its called D&D, not some japanese CRPG, but a TTRPG where people dont want that elemental bound stupid crap.

D&D is a game when enchantments are magic ripped form the universe and placed into an object.

the way you destroy the magic item resulting from this process is to destroy it by the same type of means that wear used to create it.

reforging would release the magical energies. to remove magical energies would do just that, remove them, NOT transfer them.

Bob the fighter: OMG this sword is cursed!
Moose the mage: well lets just transfer the curse to this rock and walk away.

how shitty a game design.

no curse-breaker involved, threat was meaningless, all threat int he game must be meaningless...meaning no victory can be had because you have no real chance to lose at anything....go to a bar instead.

better idea... just transfer the curse directly on the PC that wants to only use a single type of weapon and always disrupting play and leave them behind and get on with the game.

D&D shouldnt be everybodies game or try to fit every silly idea.

it WAS the gateway into RPGs for many because it was so big, it doesnt mean it needs to be designed to emulate all other sub-genres in order to still be the gateway, and now that it isnt even the gateway into RPGs anymore as MMOs handle that...D&D needs to go back to being its own thing for those who like it AS-IS.

hey why doesnt the NBA replace hand and feet use so you have to kick the ball and cant touch it with your hands, since many people like soccer. or lets have NASCAR drivers make right turns instead of left ones.

if YOU want that sort of thing, then go do it in private, nobody cares. or they didnt under AD&D...with 3.x and trying to unify all the rules so everyone plays the same way you get forced into stupid shit that not everyone want, and then so true of 4th.

AD&D was open. you kept your childish and silly ideas like that to yourself, and other people can play the way it was made to attract them to the game.

again i restate a problem with 3rd in general in thinking that everyone needs to play, or more people playing is good for the game. it is not, because everyone will NOT want to play the same way, be it transferring magic properties on a weapon, etc.

so play HOW you want to, but FUCK YOU, thinking you can force everyone else to do so.

D&D is: X
D&D can be used for: A, B, G, Y, Z

that is how it should be. not to make D&D A because some people prefer it over X.

so either:

1. play D&D with its concept
2. play D&D with your own concepts for YOUR group
3. go find something else to play

do NOT:
4. expect everyone to want to play like you do and try to hange it so they have to

this is the basics of grognard...old gaurd...protecting heritage and tradition. not accepting change jsut for the sake of change, because not all changes are useful.

BUT as with #2...you can change it for yourself ANY time you want to...just leave others alone that dont like your ideas.

(see Materia concept detailed earlier in this thread or the other thread for a true better than your elemental binding idea.)

[ModelCitizen]

Oh, BTW, non-arbitrary in-setting reason for enchantments to be transferable:

Enchantments are bound elementals/spirits/daemons. All of them. The simpler, less powerful ones may be powered by the spirit equivalent of a fish or lizard, not really sapient, just acting by rote. Then you go up through rat-like, dog-like, fully sapient, all the way up to the artifacts that have will and knowledge far beyond most who would wield them. Not necessarily a smooth progression either - you might have the odd fully intelligent spirit in a Ring of Sustenance or lizard-brained deurge powering a Mountain-Cleaver.

So instead of the paladin whining that the orc chieftain uses an axe instead of a double-bladed katana, he whines because the orc chieftain weapon has an orc ancestor spirit that grants Vicious instead of a lantern archon that grants Holy. That's not any better.

Unless the spirits are completely fluffless, and then it's a paper-thin excuse and you're right back where you started.


I do like the idea of people binding lantern archons and the ghosts of their dead ancestors into weapons though. That should happen more.

[Ice9]

So instead of the paladin whining that the orc chieftain uses an axe instead of a double-bladed katana, he whines because the orc chieftain weapon has an orc ancestor spirit that grants Vicious instead of a lantern archon that grants Holy. That's not any better.

I have posted three times in on this page alone that I am not talking about changing what type of magic an item has. What the hell is wrong with all of you?

Frank, Lago, ModelCitizen - Learn to fucking read.


On other news - oh no, shadzar thinks my idea is too jRPG, that's certainly an opinion I'll take seriously.

But I do have to answer this, because it's just stupid:

Bob the fighter: OMG this sword is cursed!
Moose the mage: well lets just transfer the curse to this rock and walk away.

How the fuck is this different than with normal D&D items? If the curse doesn't bind the sword to you, you could already just throw the sword on the ground and walk away. If it does bind it, then great, you now have a rock bound to you - which is actually worse, if it forces you to wield it. And for that matter, why would you assume that a hostile (cursed) daemon would be easy to move?

[hogarth]

What I was getting at is that it's trivially easy to construct schedules where even though you'll get a load of vendor trash more often than stuff you want you can still end up with more good stuff in the end than a staggered but 100% good stuff schedule.

So anyone who goes 'I'm sad that this opportunity didn't give me what I want!' is just being a greedy, short-sighted dimwit. Seriously, there will be more chances to get what you want [..]

Isn't Frank's argument that there's not supposed to be such a thing as "what you want" (despite the fact that in D&D there are clearly good items and clearly shitty items) because wanting a specific item is kicking the GM in the nuts and is making the players' life a litany of bitter disappointment, etc.?

So by using the words "get what you want", you've officially excommunicated yourself from the Church of Frankenology, my son.