ideas that need to go away

[Prak]

Well, I am not going to use a scythe, no matter how good it is, since I find it silly and don't want to play a scythe user. So, the range of things I am using is narrow.

Well dude, that's your choice and your problem. I'm sure someone else in the group would love to use it.

[Fuchs]

Well, I am not going to use a scythe, no matter how good it is, since I find it silly and don't want to play a scythe user. So, the range of things I am using is narrow.

Well dude, that's your choice and your problem. I'm sure someone else in the group would love to use it.

Actually in most groups I played in, people had favorite weapons, and no one wanted to wield a scythe. Paladin? Wanted a long sword and lance. Swashbuckler? Rapier and main-gauche. Elven archer? Composite Bow and short sword.

Same for just about every character I have - weapon choice is usually a big part of the character. If I want to play a swashbuckler I don't want to wield a warhammer or twohander, I want to wield a rapier and dagger.

If I won't get the weapons for my concept, don't let me play my concept in the first place. I certainly don't want to play a soul-reaper knock-off just because the GM thinks I would not appreciate getting the rapier I wanted unless I had some stupid other weapons for half the campaign.

[Fuchs]

So, idea that has to go away: That the fucking DM has to tell me how to play and equip my character. If the DM wants to decide what weapon I wield for me (by roll or choice), then he can play my character and I'll play something else.

[icyshadowlord]

...wait, since when has the DM told the players what they can and what they cannot wield? None of the ones I know have done that, and the idea has never crossed my mind, even if in my opinion the group Paladin wasn't very smart when he chose to wield a Greatsword instead of having at least some kind of shield.

Edit: I really should stop trying to type coherently while sleep-deprived.

[Fuchs]

If I don't get level-appropriate weapons of my choice, but other weapons with the required plusses to hit the enemies we fight, then the GM is telling me what to wield.

Of course the GM is technically not telling me I cannot stick to my mundane masterwork rapier and ineffectively stab at things I need magic to wound while he presents me with a magical scythe, a magical double-sword and a magical hooked hammer. But practically? I either am inefective and a drain on the party's resources, or I play something I don't like.

[icyshadowlord]

Good point, but kinda beats the point of picking magic items from a random list. Thankfully it isn't my concern right now since I'm not the DM.

[DSMatticus]

The main idea here that actually needs to go is that: "equipment is a you must be this tall to ride pass." If level 4 characters are supposed to have +2 weapons, and +2 weapons are necessary to be effective against the challenges of level 4 characters, simplify the fucking system. Level 4 characters have an inherent +2 awesome bonus.

What your magic swords actually do is some bullshit that is not number-crunching, but allows people to use atypical abilities. That way, passing on the magic sword for the nonmagical lance means having the lance you want, and still being able to use the lance in the way you've been the entire career, but missing out on whatever "and you could do this if you wanted!" ability from the sword.

If you still like the equipment grind of D&D, have the rider abilities be "approximately, randomly level-appropriate" for the party, and stay static as players advance. So occasionally the level 7 paladin gets a level 9 fire sword that does some level 9 fire ability, OR he can use it as a normal sword with all the standard and paladin class abilities. If they'd rather use a lance, and they only have a level 0 masterwork lance (i.e. nothing), all they miss out on is the special ability: not a -3 or -4 to attack or an inability to damage half the shit they fight.

[Fuchs]

It's still a dick move to present a flaming scythe to the party when no one wants to use a scythe (provided one cannot easily exchange the scythe for something people will want to use).

[Prak]

Well, I am not going to use a scythe, no matter how good it is, since I find it silly and don't want to play a scythe user. So, the range of things I am using is narrow.

Well dude, that's your choice and your problem. I'm sure someone else in the group would love to use it.

Actually in most groups I played in, people had favorite weapons, and no one wanted to wield a scythe. Paladin? Wanted a long sword and lance. Swashbuckler? Rapier and main-gauche. Elven archer? Composite Bow and short sword.

Same for just about every character I have - weapon choice is usually a big part of the character. If I want to play a swashbuckler I don't want to wield a warhammer or twohander, I want to wield a rapier and dagger.

If I won't get the weapons for my concept, don't let me play my concept in the first place. I certainly don't want to play a soul-reaper knock-off just because the GM thinks I would not appreciate getting the rapier I wanted unless I had some stupid other weapons for half the campaign.

Honestly that's fair. But you should be able to sell the scythe if no one wants it, and buy something better fitting. Possibly you might, depending on game world and GM, even be able to transform the scythe into a weapon someone does want.

[Chamomile]

This is why I suggested the salvage system. Even if you have absolutely no intention of using the weapon you're given, it still counts towards salvaging enough material for the weapon you want. Lago does have a point about this defeating the purpose of random drops a bit, but particularly if most magical items recycle into other magical items at less than a 1:1 rate I don't see it as causing more problems than it solves. You have a pile of magical weaponry you don't really want, and you can recycle it into an ability enhancing ring, a magical weapon you do want, or a wand of some handy spell in a system where using wands multiple times in one day increases the chance of it breaking instead of having a finite number of charges. Now you have an interesting choice to make and you wouldn't be able to pick two of the three even if you'd been sleeping on rocks and eating rats since level one.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Of course the GM is technically not telling me I cannot stick to my mundane masterwork rapier and ineffectively stab at things I need magic to wound while he presents me with a magical scythe, a magical double-sword and a magical hooked hammer. But practically? I either am inefective and a drain on the party's resources, or I play something I don't like.

You can make that kind of argument for any kind of magical item. I don't want to use magic carpets because it feels too Arabian Nights-y for my character. I don't want to use robe of protection because I envision my gladiator being practically naked. I don't want to use a circlet of blasting because that means I have to give up wearing this cool-but-useless hat of disguise.

You have to draw the line somewhere between 'interfering with roleplay concerns' and 'you're just basket-weaving' and I think that refusing to use a magic weapon just because it isn't shaped the way you want to falls in the latter category.

Honestly that's fair. But you should be able to sell the scythe if no one wants it, and buy something better fitting. Possibly you might, depending on game world and GM, even be able to transform the scythe into a weapon someone does want.

This is why I suggested the salvage system. Even if you have absolutely no intention of using the weapon you're given, it still counts towards salvaging enough material for the weapon you want. Lago does have a point about this defeating the purpose of random drops a bit, but particularly if most magical items recycle into other magical items at less than a 1:1 rate I don't see it as causing more problems than it solves.

No. 4E D&D tried that and it led to utter failure. People just bumped back the expected level of treasure acquisition to when/where they could force a certain drop. CharOP guides are made on the assumption of getting equipment on the stingiest possible array to eliminate any chance of not having a piece of gear after a certain point (you 'only' get level + 0 items even though the rules say you can get up to level + 4) and it led to wishlists anyway.

[Lago PARANOIA]

What your magic swords actually do is some bullshit that is not number-crunching, but allows people to use atypical abilities.

I don't think that strict horizontal advancement for magical items is the way to go. It's true that horizontal advancement is cooler and less game-breaking than horizontal advancement but unless players only have like 2-3 magical items people are going to get bored with only getting crap that's just a combo platter of superpowers not related to their base character vision.

I think that magical items should almost totally be unrelated to a character's effectiveness (meaning that you find a +4 Defender when you don't need ANY magical items) and there shouldn't be such a thing as 'vanilla' vertical advancement items. Vertical advancement items should always come with a side order of horizontal advancement.

[Fuchs]

You can make that kind of argument for any kind of magical item. I don't want to use magic carpets because it feels too Arabian Nights-y for my character. I don't want to use robe of protection because I envision my gladiator being practically naked. I don't want to use a circlet of blasting because that means I have to give up wearing this cool-but-useless hat of disguise.

You have to draw the line somewhere between 'interfering with roleplay concerns' and 'you're just basket-weaving' and I think that refusing to use a magic weapon just because it isn't shaped the way you want to falls in the latter category.

I don't think so. I decide how my character looks, what he wears, and what he wields. That's not even a roleplay concern, that's simply a gameplay concern - if I can't play the character I want to play the GM can go play with himself. I am not playing a god damn flail-wielder in a clown robe just ebcause the GM rolled that loot up or thought it would be cool.

[Lago PARANOIA]

That's not even a roleplay concern, that's simply a gameplay concern - if I can't play the character I want to play the GM can go play with himself. I am not playing a god damn flail-wielder in a clown robe just ebcause the GM rolled that loot up or thought it would be cool.

Enjoy your basket weaving, then.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Feat:
Sword-X
Prerequisites: Have some ability that requires a sword, don't have a level-appropriate sword, really want to have a level-appropriate sword.
Benefits: Any weapon you wield is considered a sword in addition to whatever else it is; you can even have it look like one. It retains all previous parameters.
Special: If you obtain a level-appropriate sword, you may replace this feat with another feat for which you met the prerequisites when you took this feat.

There. Your Fiery Burst Scythe now looks like a sword and can be used to do sword things.

[RobbyPants]

That's not even a roleplay concern, that's simply a gameplay concern - if I can't play the character I want to play the GM can go play with himself. I am not playing a god damn flail-wielder in a clown robe just ebcause the GM rolled that loot up or thought it would be cool.

Enjoy your basket weaving, then.

DM: For a random change, in the middle of the game, I thought you could do X, instead.

Player: But I thought I was doing Y.

DM: Enjoy your basket weaving, then.

[Chamomile]

DM: Roll the dice to see what class you are!

Player: Why can't I just pick a class?

DM: Basket-weaving scum!

[OgreBattle]

Why would the DM be giving weapons that nobody wants though, especially if it's just a question of flavor?

I haven't had this problem with a DM before though.
It would be annoying if I had taken Specialization in Great Axes and and I only dig up magic scythes. If the DM is doing that just to be a dick, then he's a dick.

If somebody wants a SPECIFIC ENCHANTMENT on his magic Axe, then I think it's fine for the DM to not comply with that... but still give him an axe.


It's... I mean it's sort of like real life gift shopping. You should have a pretty good idea of what a person likes and wants without asking them directly the exact thing they want. If it's a little girl who plays with dolls, buy her another doll, not a tonka truck.

[shadzar]

So, idea that has to go away: That the fucking DM has to tell me how to play and equip my character. If the DM wants to decide what weapon I wield for me (by roll or choice), then he can play my character and I'll play something else.

please do...D&D will be a happier place when you do.

If I don't get level-appropriate weapons of my choice, but other weapons with the required plusses to hit the enemies we fight, then the GM is telling me what to wield.

see above response to the other post you made.

look, the game world doesnt evolve around fucks (fuchs) like you. unless using weapon proficiencies in 1st or 2nd (optional in both) and character can pretty much wield and successfully use any weapon allowed by class.

the fact you dont want to use a scythe and will through a temper tanturm for it until you get your katana means the other players should throw you out of the game. no literally, pick you fat ass up and toss you out the door and watch the blubber skid across the asphalt/grass/dirt.

this is the problem that "player entitlement" has caused, and bunch of snot-nosed brats whining and throwing tempter tantrums if they dont get there way exactly all the time.

@Ant: ~dances around leaving a scent trail to denote food~
Fuchs could feed feed your colony for a long time, and would make your queen a nice "happy meal".

[ishy]

Why would the DM be giving weapons that nobody wants though, especially if it's just a question of flavor?
<snip>

Because that is what random item drops do.

[OgreBattle]

Another important question though is HOW the item is being presented. Yeah maybe sweaters are a sucky christmas present, but if you're naked and it's snowing and you find a sweater in a box, you're going to put it on.


Say that rapier fellow is battling against some horrible thing that his pokey sword +1 just isn't good enough. It is kickin his ass... but wait, what's that over the mantle? It's a Glowy Scythe +2, and here's some backstory whatever an old man told you about the Horrible Thing having a vulnerability to Glowy. So out of desperation Rapier Fellow graps the Glowy Scythe and takes a swing at the beast, it bites in deeply and the Infernal Baboon howls in pain. Then the Mitra priest tells you how Magic it was.

The player is introduced to the weapon not as "SURPRISE, I got you a sweater", he's introduced to it as "YOU'RE GOING TO DIE IF YOU DON'T USE THIS RIGHT NOW"

Though I haven't been in that situation, my imagination tells me I would find that a tolerable introduction to an unexpected weapon.

Because that is what random item drops do.

I prefer to have the DM just determine what it is than using a random table, for the super important stuff at least though tables are good for humor and seasoning. It works for online games where you have a community to trade with, or to extend the grind, but on the tabletop there's a game master to guide the story.

[Chamomile]

-snip-

Well and good, but if that story were anything other than a poorly made TTRPG (or a story about how some guy unbuckles his swash and goes goth instead), it ends with him putting the scythe back on the mantelpiece, or storing it in his batcave for the next weak-against-Glowy monster that comes stomping around (and one of those will not show up for quite some time). He doesn't use it in place of his signature weapon.

[shadzar]

The main idea here that actually needs to go is that: "equipment is a you must be this tall to ride pass." If level 4 characters are supposed to have +2 weapons, and +2 weapons are necessary to be effective against the challenges of level 4 characters, simplify the fucking system. Level 4 characters have an inherent +2 awesome bonus.

what level should a PC acquire a +2 weapon? 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th?
what level should a PC have an inherent +2 bonus to attack?
what level should a PC have an inherent +2 bonus to damage?
does the PC become a magical creature and is now effected by things that disrupt magic?
in 4th would this mean you can kill a human by disenchanting them for the residuum since they are now in part magic?

anyone remember where the +X weapons came from?

to kill a vampire drive a white aspen stake through its heart
to kill a werewolf use silver

those two still exist in D&D as well do others, but what if you dont have silver for a werewolf? well this general use anti-magic device was creates the magic weapon that allow you to hurt a werewolf without needing silver and it was called the +1 weapon.

Lycanthrope, Werewolf

SPECIAL DEFENSES: Hit only by silver or +1 or better magical weapon

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

and so the whole +X item system was born.

so cast out the "child of magic" concept and go back to myths where you must have silver weapons to kill a werewolf? to kill a naga you need what? starmetal by Crom!

this would mean that any magic item would be an artifact as they would only have special properties: fire, ice, etc. and wouldnt be found in many places, probably not enough to supply all PCs with one, or as Fuchs wants his special snowflake weapon.

so now you get rid of magical armor too, because you got nothing magical to hit it with unless a human is now a creature imbued with magical energy.

now a fighter is imbued with magical energy, so he is a wizard? he has nature resistance to some magic like an elf?

whle many saw 2nd as having disconnected systems, they forget often how connected many of the systems are to each other. you can change some, or remove them, but for the majority there is a core, that has each part effecting many others in design and use.

rather than give PCs the inherent bonus, why not just do the reverse and drop the need for it from monsters?

[shadzar]

Why would the DM be giving weapons that nobody wants though, especially if it's just a question of flavor?

I haven't had this problem with a DM before though.
It would be annoying if I had taken Specialization in Great Axes and and I only dig up magic scythes. If the DM is doing that just to be a dick, then he's a dick.

If somebody wants a SPECIFIC ENCHANTMENT on his magic Axe, then I think it's fine for the DM to not comply with that... but still give him an axe.


It's... I mean it's sort of like real life gift shopping. You should have a pretty good idea of what a person likes and wants without asking them directly the exact thing they want. If it's a little girl who plays with dolls, buy her another doll, not a tonka truck.

tonka trucks.. i wonder if i still have mine, or anyone else will remember them?

why the DM gives treasure...as said with random it is fair... the treasure is not hand picked, so the players shouldnt fight with the DM about favoritism.

hand-picked doesnt always have to suit the PCs though. as said before this rapier wanting fop, might be the only one to use it. where did he come from? do the people in this area even know what one is to make one? if no one can make them, how could one be there as treasure?

a reason i dont play in games with bards is along these lines..nobody would make a magical musical instrument that requires someone to play it... magic to make a musical instrument would likely be done such that the instrument plays itself for the court, or the wizard, or aristocrat.

but a greataxe is something more common that something as exotic and quite useless to most, like a rapier. a normal sword is more likely to be used effectively by a common man, rather than something that requires extra training to use like a rapier. likewise an AXE would be used so a greataxe isnt any further a step than an axe in use.

a DM presenting weapons not fitting your character might mean you picked a stupid character concept. The Dread Pirate Roberts (Westley) used a sword, not a rapier.

so the common person have something a common person would and could use, is not that uncommon as them having something they wouldn't/couldn't use.

like present shopping though, you may go to find something someone want, and you get it and they respond "but this is red and i wanted the blue one" like many a spoiled brat does. colors for toys vary by area, so you might not have been able to buy the blue one (see GI Joe 80s-90s SNAKE armor that came in blue in some areas and white in others, but the box showed the same art and didnt tell what color was inside).

if you get something you CAN use, and decide to be a dick and NOT help the party by NOT using it for some childish reason, then you are too immature to be playing D&D.

[Seerow]

Re: The issue of rolling random loot and that causing trouble with PCs who don't want that weapon type. Didn't 4e introduce a relatively cheap ritual that lets you transfer the enchantment from one item to another that can have the same enchantment type? Sure it won't always be compatible, but most of the time it's fine.