Magic Swords

[SunTzuWarmaster]

I played in a party that looted dungeons. We then sold them, to people that wanted to build dungeons. You can put a price on a dungeon. If each character resolves to have a bag of holding type 3, the only reason NOT to steal everything is that you are under time crunch. Literally, this party took the doors, the spikes at the bottom of the pit trap, the thone, the gates, BBEG reading material, everything. To not take the leather armor from the mooks would just be insulting to them.

You will have players like this, so to think that a fighter will find a magic dagger that a rogue carried and NOT think that it would be useful in a grapple is just foolish.

That being said, signature weapons are a great concept. When I think of RPG fighter-type characters that I have played, your weapon says alot about you. If you weild a warhammer, chances are that you don't even want a greatsword (not that you wouldn't use one if it was significantly better). In accordance with this, I like the experience-type upgrading rules. Chances are you started off with your crap sword at level 1 and you put some time into it so that it got +1 to hit at level 2.

So, I think that it should be built into the fighter class, you may have 1 signature weapon per 5 levels, into which you can invest part of yourself into making it level-appropriate. If you defeat a BBEG, you can use his above-level-appropriate sword for a while, and then upgrade after a time, but it will require that you make it YOUR weapon instead of his, with a ritual or whatnot. Maybe there could be a big up-front cost to making a weapon a signature weapon, but a lesser cost for upgrading?

Essentially, I want a level 1 fighter to have "dad's old sword", and at level 5, have the same sword that has now had part of your own legend built into it, in addition to having picked up a ranged attacking weapon. Of course, finding a ghost-touch weapon (or +vs. shapeshifters or whatever), you will always have a backup that will be sub-par to your signature except against specific threats.

[RandomCasualty]

1175826306[/unixtime]]
The question is actually and simply whether it is worse to compare each and every frost sword you come across to your own to see which is "bigger" or to know in the deepest parts of your heart that any of the frost brands will do.

Honestly, I'd prefer to try to set magic items up in a way that you can have several equivalently good items that are effective against different kinds of creatures, as opposed to the cut and dry "This does more damage against everything and is in all ways better."

I'd think it'd be kind of nice to have a sword that's good against heavily armored stuff, a sword that's good against cold creatures, a sword that's good against fast lightly armored things, a sword good against large things and so on. So it's not immediately obvious what sword is "better".

As far as upgrading items versus auto-scaling items, I'd go with the static items that you have to upgrade. Heirloom items can always just upgrade themselves without paying anything.

[shau]

I initially favored the sword level approach, because finding new cool swords is really fun for people, and the game should maximize fun for people. Then you said that the sword is to be periodically replaced anyway, so I really don't care either way.

That being said, I do not think you will be able to solve the looting problem. Ultimately, they are a lot of people who do not loot because they need the swag but loot because looting is really fun for them. Which, considering that the game revolves around stabbing people in the face and taking their stuff, seems entirely appropriate.

[User3]

Waesel--

What's your problem with awesome heirloom swords?

Regardless, if you don't like them, you don't have to use them. Your father's sword has a max level of 20, so you're never *forced* to discard it. However, as long as the DM hands out level-appropriate treasure, you have any number of viable alternatives.

Seriously, my point was that you can just give everything a max level of 20, in which case it works just like option 1, except that you can specifically make certain weapons too weak to prevent players from wanting them.

[User3]

Above was me. Got logged out somehow.

[Draco_Argentum]

I'd have the power be fixed to the item's level for non named items. But I wouldn't have frost swords +7 and +8. That'd be obnoxious. Make the gaps larger. That way people might not pick up acid +5 swords from mooks when they have a fire +15 or whatever.

As for named artifacts they should really have something like Essence suggested. As you level you get access to its better powers.

There also needs to be a way to go from generic to named so that people can create their own sword of destiny or whatever. Same mechanics as making one whole cloth, just a fluff text tackon.

Those last two points are like that lame weapons of legend book. Preferably with noncrap mechanics though.

[Digestor]

To be honest Frank, I like both and I agree with the aforementioned mixing of two (minimum bonus - maximum bonus) as well as simply leaving the two up to the decision of the gamer(s)/DM in question...

Unless of course other parts of the game/book of gears depend on this, in that case I'd go with Scaling too. reasoning: "you attune to your magic sword of face-stabbery and it has grown in power, as have you".

[Brobdingnagian]

Digestor beat me to it. I was going to say, "Just put both in, and whatever plausible comprimises, and let the gamers decide."

It is a good point, though, for this discussion to continue. Do other parts of the Book of Gears rely on this decision, or is it fairly standalone?

That being asked, would the same apply to armour/shields? Wands/Staves? Etc.

[Draco_Argentum]

Random comment, when I think staves I still think of the weapons in Heretic.

[CalibronXXX]

I think that your basic magic sword or +1 quarter-staff of orc burning should be static, where as your moderate magic weapon Hand of the Justiciar should scale to level, and the legendary and unique Winterbringer would have a minimum level of power and be somewhat better than level appropriate after you've exceeded that minimum power level.

Fighters will still carry around golfbags of minor magic crap because they can totally make and upgrade the stuff thanks to their Forge Lore ability. Other martial characters aren't forced to golfbag similarly to keep up in combat power since their favorite two or three weapons will almost certainly scale with level.

[MrWaeseL]

1175831786[/unixtime]]Waesel--

What's your problem with awesome heirloom swords?

Regardless, if you don't like them, you don't have to use them. Your father's sword has a max level of 20, so you're never *forced* to discard it. However, as long as the DM hands out level-appropriate treasure, you have any number of viable alternatives.

Seriously, my point was that you can just give everything a max level of 20, in which case it works just like option 1, except that you can specifically make certain weapons too weak to prevent players from wanting them.

Why would your father have a level 20 sword laying around? That makes no sense.

[Fwib]

Why would your father have a level 20 sword laying around? That makes no sense.

Maybe it was inherited from his father, and his father before that...

Maybe it belonged to an ancestor who was a famous warrior, or was looted from a battlefield by an ancestor who was just an ordinary conscript at the final battle against the lich-king... or whatever.

D&D is a co-operative story, so people ought to be able to play the story where a hero starts out with his father's sword/the sword of his ancestors, as well as being able to play the story where the hero starts out with nothing as a peasant, or the story where .... whatever, any of many different stories...

[MrWaeseL]

It just seems awfully convenient to start with such a sword because of inheritance.

[CalibronXXX]

This is D&D contrived conveniences are what we do. Besides, it's like it's even remotely over powered seeing as it would scale with level by definition.

[Draco_Argentum]

1175860850[/unixtime]]It just seems awfully convenient to start with such a sword because of inheritance.

Giving your super sword to your son beats the other way people lose equipment in D&D.

[Falgund]

Maybe there could be a double scaling ?
Ie at level 3 you could find a Fire sword that deals your level in damage, but that at level 10 you can upgrade it to a Greater Fire sword that deals level*1.5 fire damage.

Thus you won't have to upgrade your swords every few level, but you'll still left rotting the guards' Acid sword because you'll already have a Greater Fire one.

(Now the difficuty is to found the correctly balanced double scaling)

[Neeek]

Hmm.

I like Frank's "Artifacts are kickass regardless of user" idea.

I like the "weapon grows with character" plan.

For the "weapon grows with character" plan, I'd make it contingent on using that weapon most of the time (plot reasons (sword stolen) and circumstances (such as invulnerability to the weapon or weapon unusable in the circumstance, due to disarm, grapple, etc) being acceptable reasons not to use it, generally the "bag of swords" style of fighting, not so much). The idea being some of your awesomeness rubs off on the weapon as you get more awesome, but only for you. That makes the "parent gives his weapon to child" story work just fine, and defeats the "bag of swords" effect to a large degree.

[Catharz]

One possibility (basically an amalgamation of other's ideas):
Artifact item: Something made with an investment of real power (planar currency). Artifact items scale up (min bonus = (max creator-level user-level)).

Magic item: Something made to be magic by a skilled crafter. Magic items scale down (min bonus = (min creator-level user-level)).

On the other hand, wouldn't it be better to have all items scale (to the normal GMW degree), and have the magical coolness come in the form of non-numeric bonuses?

[Iaimeki]

I generally think less bookkeeping is better, so I vote for weapons that scale.

[Judging__Eagle]

Actually; 'less' bookkeeping is good for most people.

Some people want to be able to make custom weapons that truly excel at killing specific targets.

I know that it doesn't really fit the play-dynamic of D&D or most fantasy games to have weapons of "automatic ogre-slaying"; but weapons that were meant ot kill goblins or elves or dragons of ogres or even anybody injured by the weapon have existed in mythology.

This is all probably useless; but I guess it boils down to:

"how will Bane weapons be treated"


[braying of animals follows]:


Weapon properties such as: "kill evil outsiders really fast"; "kill large-sized creatures really fast"; and "kill creatures of the fire subtype" weapons that could be mixed and matched to give massive bonuses versus say... Salamanders (Large, Fire Subtyped, Evil Outsiders) would be something that I'd like to see.

Then again, this is coming from a guy who's going to re-write his version of the "Ranger" as the "Racist Bastard".

Also, I'm only basing it on a silly south Korean 2D sprite characters/monsters and 3D background mmo game called Ragnarok Online.

In that game the 'best' weapons are actually "low-damage" weapons which you place 4 "damage multiplier cards" (race and energy element cards are pretty specific, so they add +20% more damage; size related cards (small, medium, large) only do +15%). Of course, to make this 'trick' work, you need a really high "physical damage stat" (str or melee, dex for ranged) and since the 'damage stats' have hidden squared bonuses, it works to have the worst weapon with 4 damage multiplier cards over a really high attack weapon with no damage multiplication (at high levels, and if you've got a maxed or really high damage stat) [the "physical damage stat" calculation is done like this; if anyone cares:

Primary Phyiscal Damage Stat (Str, melee, Dex Ranged) = X
Luk Stat = L
Secondary Physcial Damage Stat (if you're melee, it's dex, if your ranged it's Str) = Y

Phyical Damage = [X + (X/10)^2] + (L/5) + (Y/5)

So, having, 50 str nets you 75 attack overall, but 100 str nets you 200 attack; and in 'normal' server play 110-120 str is easy; granting 231 (110 str) and 264 (120 str). Of course, multiplying that value by 1.5 will net you more damage than using a weapon that only adds +80 to your attack. Of course, there are more ways to increase your attack stat, but a high Prime Physical Damage Stat works the best.

Now the trick is that these cards are multipliers; so against one target, you could have 15%*20%*40% (one size, one race or element and then two element or race) to achieve craziness like getting x1.932 damage instead of x1 damage; knowing what your target is and making a weapon specifically designed to slay it has some obvious benefits, like being able to kill something almost twice as fast).

I don't think that D&D can bring this into play, and would probably lead to people having golfbags of custom-tailored weapons; which depends on who's being asked is either mildly acceptable or completely unacceptable.

[TRQ]

I vote for weapons with static abilities, or at least with a static cap on their abilities (i.e. this weapon is a +X shocking weapon so it counts as +min(X, yourlevel) in shocking). Bookkeeping is seriously a minimal issue, and there aren't any real numerical reasons to choose one or the other, or else Frank wouldn't have asked us. So I choose static weapons for flavor and clarity of concept.
1) What kind of magical explanation do you have for weapons that scale with level? Yes, your high level character can make any sword LOOK cooler than a peon, but why should the magic flowing through the steel ACTUALLY fluctuate in power when its tossed back and forth between them? For your world to be consistent, there has to be a reasonable explanation. If there's a good one that meshes with the rest of the magic system, then by all means, scaling is the right choice.
2) The sagas and epics that have survived the test of time often have the heroes and villains wielding specific and cool weapons. I think the flavor of having each weapon be something essentially unique is better than one where weapons are mix 'n' match. I don't like the idea that a handful of fighters could have their fire swords taken away, put in a pile, and returned at random, and no one would give a hoot. This is my +X frost weapon. There are many others like it. But this one is mine.
3) You're not going to stop people from looting if they like to loot. You're definitely not going to stop them from golfbagging. But if there's a better frost sword in the loot than the one you have, is it really that complicated to erase the +X and write +Y? Plus, that allows for progress in treasure over time that doesn't involve giving new abilities from the equipment, while it doesn't eliminate any creativity in treasure that's otherwise possible.
4) Simple. You don't have to figure out a way for every minor magic enchantment to scale with level.

[Nihlin]

1175904617[/unixtime]]Also, I'm only basing it on a silly south Korean 2D sprite characters/monsters and 3D background mmo game called Ragnarok Online.

Right, and in RO, curse its blackened husk, you can jolly well go level on one map for three months straight and actually have that be an optimal XP generation strategy. That level of customization, where monsters have half a dozen arbitrary properties (that tiny rock is a fire-aligned plant creature? wtf?) that you optimize your weapons to defeat, only really works when you can reliably fight the same stuff all the time.

So, in, say, an undead-hunting campaign, that might be kinda neat, but that's about as far as you'd get. If the entire MM is up for grabs, you'd end up with a whole golf cart of weapons instead of just a golf bag.

[Judging__Eagle]

True, although, I got to the point where I was seriously going on the private servers to see the newer game elements that we would have taken years to see on the american servers.

Then I found out that the level cap can be as high as 255, and making all sorts of crazy customizable characters made me stick around on a pair of different servers.

Custom items are really only good for grinding the mosnter it's good for, I'll admit.

There were only 3 properties any one creature could have (race, element, size); but the while the number of sizes (3: small, medium and large) was 'reasonably' easy to remember; there are a pile of elemental and racial 'types' (10 each) I actually thought that there were more races than elements, guess I was wrong. Which can give rise to literally thousands of monster types.

Element types: fire, earth, wind, water, holy, dark, ghost, neutral/normal, poison and undead;

The Fire>Earth>Wind>Water>Fire wheel is in effect. Likewise Holy attacks rape dark and vice versa. Ghost is raped only by ghost, but any other element will deal only 100% damage and ghost misses neutral, but neutral either sucks vs. or misses ghost. Poison hurts the 4 prime elements only slightly and is not weak to any. Undead is weak to fire an water.

Racial type: Normal/Formless (golems, animated objects fall in here), demi-human (which many things like orcs, goblins and even PCs fell into); dragon, boss (yes, boss is seriously a race, but it's a secret bonus race that Bosses have in addition to their normal race); plant, insect, undead (yes, it's both an element type and a race type), devil, angel, 'brute' (animals) and fish.

I looked up my races again in ro.empire.com's monster database; I had forgotten about fish and while I recalled devil, there are so few angel monsters that I forgot to recall it as a monster type. =/

Of course, a game where you have to kill thousands of a monster to get a card is not a good way to create a really fun game. It was all grinding to get a +10 Penis Hat or some shit, really.

[User3]

I am very much a fan of scaling weapons as opposed to having gradations within types. There should be one type of Frost Sword, not Frost +1 Sword, Frost +2 Sword, .... That's just lame.

I did want to respond specifically to TRQ however:

1175904637[/unixtime]]I vote for weapons with static abilities, or at least with a static cap on their abilities (i.e. this weapon is a +X shocking weapon so it counts as +min(X, yourlevel) in shocking). Bookkeeping is seriously a minimal issue, and there aren't any real numerical reasons to choose one or the other, or else Frank wouldn't have asked us. So I choose static weapons for flavor and clarity of concept.
1) What kind of magical explanation do you have for weapons that scale with level? Yes, your high level character can make any sword LOOK cooler than a peon, but why should the magic flowing through the steel ACTUALLY fluctuate in power when its tossed back and forth between them? For your world to be consistent, there has to be a reasonable explanation. If there's a good one that meshes with the rest of the magic system, then by all means, scaling is the right choice.

The magical property is "it deals cold damage". How much cold damage it deals is a function of how awesome you are at wielding it. Thus a 20th level fighter wields a Frost Sword much better than a 1st level fighter wielding the same Frost Sword. The weapon isn't doing anything different, the person holding it is. All things that scale with character level are ultimately attributable back to what the character is doing, not what the thing is doing.

This both makes sense (for the simulationists), is better for the game (for the narrativists), and gamists just don't care so long as they have a set of rules to optimize over.

2) The sagas and epics that have survived the test of time often have the heroes and villains wielding specific and cool weapons. I think the flavor of having each weapon be something essentially unique is better than one where weapons are mix 'n' match. I don't like the idea that a handful of fighters could have their fire swords taken away, put in a pile, and returned at random, and no one would give a hoot. This is my +X frost weapon. There are many others like it. But this one is mine.

Hint: You can't achieve that in the D+D paradigm. There are going to be dozens of any given weapon type, because anyone can make them.

In the sagas and epics, magic items are rare. The fact that its a fucking magic sword is pretty damn special right there - that same fact in D+D just gets yawns.

Finally, a lot of the special-ness of a given weapon is its history. This is Orcrist, the Goblin Cleaver. It was forged by an elf-smith in lost Gondolin in the first age. Etc, etc... Mechanics-wise, its a Sword of Goblin-bane. But its special because it has a history.

Heck, there are fucking NORMAL swords in the sagas that are special because of their history. They aren't even magical. Its just a fucking sword. But its still special.

So DMs or players should take the time to describe the look and history of their gear. That's good for the game, and the only reason why epic weapons in stories are actually 'special'.

3) You're not going to stop people from looting if they like to loot. You're definitely not going to stop them from golfbagging. But if there's a better frost sword in the loot than the one you have, is it really that complicated to erase the +X and write +Y? Plus, that allows for progress in treasure over time that doesn't involve giving new abilities from the equipment, while it doesn't eliminate any creativity in treasure that's otherwise possible.

Yeah, but scumming for slightly better bonuses is fucking lame. Hoarding a Flame Brand, a Frost Sword, a Sword of Corrosion, and a Static Blade is ok. Comparing every fucking Flame Brand to the one you're carrying to see which one is better is just stupid. The DM says "You find a Flame Brand" - everyone knows exactly what it does and life goes on.

4) Simple. You don't have to figure out a way for every minor magic enchantment to scale with level.

How many magic enhancements do we need? Seriously. Everything I can think of that's reasonably appropriate is easy to scale with level or doesn't need to.

[Digestor]

^ Ehhh some swords ARE sharper than others, so it stands to reason that some frost swords are frostier than others.