Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:18 pm
If your shtick is utterly dependent on using a particular type of weapon, then getting such a weapon should be an explicit class feature.
Some other monsters might do that, but the closest thing I see in the balor's entry is Death Throes, which would destroy the sword, but it is possible to steal it before killing them.Seerow wrote: Doesn't 3.5 also have stupid shit like enchanted weapons that aren't enchanted when the monster isn't holding it, so no you don't get that Balor's flaming vorpal sword or some shit?
Just sayin' it isn't a 4e only phenomenon.
the thing is, in most cases it IS a class feature. under weapon proficiencies each class got specific lists, LISTS of weapons they can use and become proficient in.RadiantPhoenix wrote:If your shtick is utterly dependent on using a particular type of weapon, then getting such a weapon should be an explicit class feature.
Yes, Salamander have spears. So what? It's not as if all the foes you fight are Salamanders.FrankTrollman wrote:Salamanders have flaming spears. You go fight a salamander, you get a fucking flaming spear. It's right there. It exists. If you want to play a game where the flaming spears on salamanders don't drop and you keep using a sword your whole life, go play some fucking World of Warcraft.Fuchs wrote:Well, you're wrong. If "guy with sword" is ok in a campaign then "guy with a longsword" is perfectly acceptable as well.
In D&D, the enemies have actual equipment and some of it is awesome. And the things you wear and use in battle tell a story about the places you've been and the things you've done. Because the weapons of war used by your opponents are actual objects that you can and will pick up and use when they are defeated. There is a version of D&D that doesn't do that: it's called 4th edition and it fucking sucks.
-Username17
There's no need. It is implied when the DM approves the character. If the DM is not letting the dagger specialist get any dagger loot in teh campaign he's a dick for approving the character in the first place, same as someone approving a character aimed at messing with the minds of his foes is a dick if all they fight are mindless udnead or plants form then on.RadiantPhoenix wrote:If your shtick is utterly dependent on using a particular type of weapon, then getting such a weapon should be an explicit class feature.
tell your mother to get you a new babysitter, cause your current one lets you get away with too much.Fuchs wrote:There's no need. It is implied when the DM approves the character. If the DM is not letting the dagger specialist get any dagger loot in teh campaign he's a dick for approving the character in the first place, same as someone approving a character aimed at messing with the minds of his foes is a dick if all they fight are mindless udnead or plants form then on.RadiantPhoenix wrote:If your shtick is utterly dependent on using a particular type of weapon, then getting such a weapon should be an explicit class feature.
1. in each edition the PCs have had means to create their own shit. you can make any magic item or spell as a player you want to.Xur wrote:Shadzar, you are an idiot beyond believe. Do you really go your way handing players just what showed up on the random chart, with no regard whatsoever to their wishes and tastes?
I get that it becomes old really fast if every session, a player's favourite weapon conveniently shows up in a better version, but really? You got to be kidding.
I have a feeling he doesDo you really go your way handing players just what showed up on the random chart, with no regard whatsoever to their wishes and tastes?
shadzar wrote:1. in each edition the PCs have had means to create their own shit. you can make any magic item or spell as a player you want to.Xur wrote:Shadzar, you are an idiot beyond believe. Do you really go your way handing players just what showed up on the random chart, with no regard whatsoever to their wishes and tastes?
I get that it becomes old really fast if every session, a player's favourite weapon conveniently shows up in a better version, but really? You got to be kidding.
Really? Nothing at all?shadzar wrote: the DM owes the players NOTHING.
1. the fuck if i know, Spelljammer isnt D&D, but a spin-off. look in its campaign setting material to find out. odds are if you are using that, then your DM will ahve that info for you, or IIRC, you will find one and not HAEV to make it. THEN once out there, you might learn how and go from there.fectin wrote:shadzar wrote:1. in each edition the PCs have had means to create their own shit. you can make any magic item or spell as a player you want to.Xur wrote:Shadzar, you are an idiot beyond believe. Do you really go your way handing players just what showed up on the random chart, with no regard whatsoever to their wishes and tastes?
I get that it becomes old really fast if every session, a player's favourite weapon conveniently shows up in a better version, but really? You got to be kidding.
Please to explain how I make Spelljamming Helm?
Really? Nothing at all?shadzar wrote:the DM owes the players NOTHING.
I'm pretty sure this is the Oberoni fallacy.Fuchs wrote:There's no need. It is implied when the DM approves the character. If the DM is not letting the dagger specialist get any dagger loot in teh campaign he's a dick for approving the character in the first place, same as someone approving a character aimed at messing with the minds of his foes is a dick if all they fight are mindless udnead or plants form then on.
well the problem is a vorpal sword really doesnt benefit the party any more than random weapon Y.Xur wrote:I know its totally pointless to argue with you, Shadzar, but just for the fun of it: you realize that a party, which, according to your prior posting, you would give hand-picked treasure if you can see a group benefit in doing so, consists of single, individual players?
So, giving Bob a vorpal sword is not only catering towards the player, but the party as well because their fighting capabilites now have increased as a whole. You speak like the party is a vague force in the background that has nothing in common with an individual player. Worse, you say a DM owes the players nothing... I sence Gygax dickery all over the place, in fact, your posting reeks of it.
And, because I know you'll come up with a single-case counter argument, I am not speaking of ididocy wishes like a player wants to have a longsword when the game takes place in the bronze age, where such things just didn't exist - that is out of question.
i guess you are replying to me....?fectin wrote:1. Cool. Then the answer is "Play 3rd edition, because that's the one which lets you make random magic devices". Good advice.
2. Common curtesy? A fun game? Respect?
+ fucking 1.fectin wrote:1. Cool. Then the answer is "Play 3rd edition, because that's the one which lets you make random magic devices". Good advice.
2. Common curtesy? A fun game? Respect?
While technically 1E/2E let you make items, the process was so unbelievably brutal that you were always better off just questing after the item rather than making it, given that you had an arbitrary list of DM ingredients, one of which was actually supposed to be something crazy like "the breath of a shadow" or something else intangible.shadzar wrote:also 1st and 2nd edition lets players make their own magic items, as well does 4th...i think.
that is probably because you dont read...Xur wrote:For someone who has the tagline "Play the game, not the rules." in his signature, you certainly act like someone who's really attached to what a random chart table says.
quesitng after it doesnt mean finding it in the next dragon's hoard though. finding someone who it would be less risk to make and much higher chance of succes is also a quest.Swordslinger wrote:While technically 1E/2E let you make items, the process was so unbelievably brutal that you were always better off just questing after the item rather than making it, given that you had an arbitrary list of DM ingredients, one of which was actually supposed to be something crazy like "the breath of a shadow" or something else intangible.shadzar wrote:also 1st and 2nd edition lets players make their own magic items, as well does 4th...i think.
Then you had to blow a permanent Con point, and after that, there was a percentage that the item wouldn't work or would be cursed.
Are there wizards willing to take commissions?shadzar wrote:with the exception Ye Olde Magick Shoppe doesnt exist to go buy any or every thing.
Prak_Anima wrote:Are there wizards willing to take commissions?shadzar wrote:with the exception Ye Olde Magick Shoppe doesnt exist to go buy any or every thing.
shadzar wrote:finding someone who it would be less risk to make and much higher chance of success is also a quest.