| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking to Groundhog and Asmodeus' Advocate. I think Groundhog's example is of a fighter they find "unoptimized." However, the depths of sub-optimal are deep indeed. A low-op level 2 fighter may be an elf with 12 strength, 18 dex, a rapier and Skill focus perception, weapon finesse and blind fight.
That would give rapier attack line of +6 1d6+1. Which is quite bad compared to a monk flurrying with a +2 dagger, wounding or not.
And yet, this is a build that seems like it should work. He is clearly playing to the blind swordsman archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, probably the best thing to do is advise the player that after checking the rules he can't flurry with the dagger, but to make up for it, a merchant has heard of the weapon, and has lined up a buyer for it. Since he really wants to turn it over quickly, he is wiling to give everyone in the party credit to purchase what they want at the shop for more than the normal sale value. Depending on how many players you have, offer 6000 to each player if it's a party of 4, 5000 if it's a party of 5 or 4000 if it is a party of 6. (Normal sale price is about 16000 for the dagger.)
Yes, this is way over the wealth by level of the party, but at least it spreads it over the entire party, as opposed to concentrating it into one person's hands.
Or a pickpocket could just take it. If you run around with something worth thousands of gold a high-level rouge will try to take it.
Wow! I'd never have dreamed that my tone and comments were "unconscionable" or "infuriating" or "tactlessly rude".
I did try to inject a bit of humor into the discussion. Apparently that didn't come across to everyone in this thread. Humor is strange that way, and doesn't always make it into print. My apologies to Treyn for anything that may have rubbed the wrong way. I think it's great that Treyn and his players are wrestling with questions like this, it means they obviously care about our shared hobby.
From the way the discussion appears to have gone, most of Treyn's problem has already disappeared. He has learned that the monk can't flurry with a dagger (fewer blows means fewer bleeding attacks) and his comment about the monk "jumping around the field" makes me wonder if they haven't also been allowing multiple attacks after movement.
But the root problem, IMHO, is whether the sudden appearance in a campaign of an item that is somewhat beyond the normally expected bounds of WBL is inherently problematic. I would argue that it doesn't have to be, and that it can be a feature, not a bug.
Especially if the character in question is a monk or a rogue, generally considered to be the "weakest" classes in the game. I mean, these classes could probably use all the help they can get, just to keep up with other PCs who, even if they are not highly optimised, have intrinsically more powerful combat and narrative powers.
Treyn and his players seem to enjoy having lots of magic in the game right from the starting levels. I still can't see the problem with that. Sounds to me like they're having fun! Why try to find some convoluted deus ex machina intervention to take that fun away? Seriously! Suggesting that the DM have the item stolen, or throwing in a thief or a rust monster encounter, or revealing a "hidden" weakness or limitation of the item... it just sounds like a contrived DM power grab to me.
Really, the only potential problem here is if one PC is getting all the cool gear to the exclusion of his pals, and if the player is using that gear to hog the limelight and diminish the fun for the other players. If that's the case, then there is a far better solution available than somehow nerfing the offending dagger or taking it away in some contrived scenario. Just give the other PCs some cool toys of their own.
Regardless of how powerful these 2nd-level PCs seem to be, the DM can just adjust encounters to suit their new power level. Problem solved! No need for worries about anyone "trivializing encounters". A good DM is always adjusting encounters, tactics and situations to better suit his players and enhance their gaming experience.
Speaking to Groundhog and Asmodeus' Advocate. I think Groundhog's example is of a fighter they find "unoptimized." However, the depths of sub-optimal are deep indeed. A low-op level 2 fighter may be an elf with 12 strength, 18 dex, a rapier and Skill focus perception, weapon finesse and blind fight.
That would give rapier attack line of +6 1d6+1. Which is quite bad compared to a monk flurrying with a +2 dagger, wounding or not.
And yet, this is a build that seems like it should work. He is clearly playing to the blind swordsman archetype.
Use Sword Cane for more Zatoichi.
Ah, Wheldrake, you have my apologies once more! You see, I did not call your post tactlessly rude, rather, that is how I described my own.
In my admittedly curt response to Wheldrake, I noted that the problem of the wounding dagger not existing was both flatly contradicted by a primary source and based on assumptions about the game that, in fact, vary from table to table, party to party, and level to level. I also took offense to what I perceived his attitude to be, and was tactlessly rude.
Perhaps I would have left less room for confusion had I written, "I took offense to what I perceived his attitude to be, and I was tactlessly rude." As you've demonstrated, it's far too easy to miss the subject of a sentence when the predicate is riddled with commas! I will clarify more carefully moving forward.
You'll also note that I described neither your comments nor your tone as "unconscionable", or "infuriating", I described my perceptions of them as such. Now, I'm a hard man to annoy . . . sorry, I can't say that with a straight face. I'm a cantankerous lout with a hair trigger temper, but I do try to be a courteous one! Nonetheless, being quoted out of context annoys me.
But let us not quibble over trivialities! It seems we are both victims of the same misfortune; we try to be funny but are instead just offensive.