Ok, so this character has a Luck Blade short sword. He meets a horribly swift and untimely death. The party then decided to split up their friend's collection, including the Luck Blade. No one really wants it. So the halfling cleric of Odin takes it. Why? Well the "possessor" gets +1 to all saves and gets to re-roll a miss of any kind once per day. So....does he have to "wield" it or just "possess" it in order to gain from the effects of the magic luck? Remember, he is small, the weapon is medium, and he is not proficient with martial weapons. He just carries it for "luck".
As a DM how would you rule on this one?
Creative Director
|
Ok, so this character has a Luck Blade short sword. He meets a horribly swift and untimely death. The party then decided to split up their friend's collection, including the Luck Blade. No one really wants it. So the halfling cleric of Odin takes it. Why? Well the "possessor" gets +1 to all saves and gets to re-roll a miss of any kind once per day. So....does he have to "wield" it or just "possess" it in order to gain from the effects of the magic luck? Remember, he is small, the weapon is medium, and he is not proficient with martial weapons. He just carries it for "luck".
As a DM how would you rule on this one?
You just have to possess it. Even if you never pull it out of its scabbard to stab someone with it, you'll still get the luck bonus and the reroll power.
The idea of someone carrying around a lucky talisman of ANYTHING is a cool concept. It just so happens in the halfling's case that talisman is in the shape of an oversized for him sword.
I think he could just own it, and have it on his person. Possession is 9/10's of the law, and all that.
Magic armor gives its bonuses without being in actual contact with the body of the wearer (padding and underclothes, etc.) so there should be no reason why another character can't have something on their belt for use as well.
Or, if you decree they must be in contact with it... just get your magic-crafting PC to do a check to isolate the portion of the sword that holds the magic, and then wear it as a pendant. Or just strap it to your arm.
The SRD says that this sort of magical item can be activated "through the will of the user", but since he is not holding it explicitly, it does get sticky.
I would change it from Free Action activation to a Move Action or Swift Action activation, because your cleric would have to grab the hilt of the Lucky Blade in order to use its power.
1. I would have the relatives of the dead character show up and ask for thier proper inheritance. This would get ugly if the PCs refuse. Lawyers, sheriffs, marshals, judges, jailors, fines, and jails could all get involved. Why? I have probably been giving out treasure at roughly the Wealth-by-Level guidelines, and if one PC dies and his treasure goes to the party, then they usually become considerably overpowered compared to the guidelines. I generally don't allow that, and I play a fairly realistic campaign with regards to NPCs, and since my players know it, they probably would have tried to bring that stuff back to the relatives in the first place.
But, hey, they might carry his stuff for the rest of the dungeon crawl, so:
2. The entire description of the sword says "possessor" not "wielder". It would be awkward to have to carry your weapon around unsheathed all the time. Moreso in town where weapons are peace tied or otherwise secured. People who want luck want it all the time. A guy climbing a cliff that might slip and fall to his death won't be thrilled that he has to hold that sword in his hand and essentially climb one-handed. A rogue disarming a trap that accidentally goes off may need that saving throw bonus. Etc.
Besides all that, you only have to carry a Luckstone for the same benefit, so I should think this works the same way.
Side note: You mentioned that the rogue is not proficient with this weapon, but actually he is. This is a shortsword so your rogue character is proficient with it. He is small so he can wield this light Shortsword as a one-handed weapon, but he cannot wield it as a light one-handed weapon. He does suffer a -2 penalty on attack rolls because the weapon is one size category larger than him. This penalty applies no matter how many hands he uses to wield it.
Edit: Seems Mr. Jacobs and I see eye-to-eye again, though he responded faster. I blame my due-diligence spending extra minutes double-checking the rules on Luckstone and on inappropriately sized weapons, not to mention the side rant about wealth-by-level.
Mmmhhh...the original owner was a 1/2-elven rogue. The new owner is a 1/2-ling cleric, so he is not proficient with this martial weapon. But as you say, the description does in fact say "possession" not "wielding".
And yes, it take no time at all for the treasure amount to get out of hand when the characters keep taking the stuff of those who die. Kind of wild-west-esque huh?
The dead character was a fugitive from an empire to the west, family unknown. So no heirs. The cleric I think would want it returned to the family if they could be contacted, or perhaps bury him with his goods.
Mmmhhh...the original owner was a 1/2-elven rogue. The new owner is a 1/2-ling cleric, so he is not proficient with this martial weapon.
I beg to differ.
A shortsword is still a shortsword, and rogues are proficient with shortswords.
This one is too big, so it fits his hand poorly, causing a -2 penalty to attack, but this is definitely not the -4 "Non-Proficiency" penalty. It's also too heavy for him to treat it as a "light" weapon, but he can still wield it in one hand.
So, by the RAW, he is proficient (but awkward) with this weapon.
This is all covered in the Core Rulebook, Equipment chapter, under "Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons" and also under "Weapon Size".
And yes, it take no time at all for the treasure amount to get out of hand when the characters keep taking the stuff of those who die. Kind of wild-west-esque huh?
You are quite right.
The wild west wasn't a game, and it often was every man for himself. However, here in our Pathfinder games, we try to maintain game balance. Monsters have a CR that tells us, roughly, how hard they are to kill. But that CR assumes that we have the right number of characters carrying the right amount/quality of gear. If we break that system on the player end (too much or too little), then the DM begins to have no way to mechanically estimate monster challenges. It becomes guesswork, and makes it harder for the DM.
Which is to say, there is nothing preventing you from letting these guys go over the Wealth-by-Level guidelines. They are just guidelines. But if you do, it makes your job harder.
Or as you say, it "gets out of hand".
But I'm probably preaching to the choir - you seem well aware of this stuff. So think of this as a corroborating viewpoint.
I guess I am just a mean GM....
By my own personal logic a sword that is powerful enough to contain wishes (I am assuming the pathfinder version can contain wishes, I don't have my books with me) would be classified as an artifact and would have a decent chance of being sentient to some extent. It should at least have an Ego =)
If it had an ego it would resent sitting in a bag of holding (or whatever) while the owner was swinging another weapon.
I/my group has always ruled to gain the benefit it has to be a weapon you use, not just own.
|
Mmmhhh...the original owner was a 1/2-elven rogue. The new owner is a 1/2-ling cleric, so he is not proficient with this martial weapon.I beg to differ.
A shortsword is still a shortsword, and rogues are proficient with shortswords.
This one is too big, so it fits his hand poorly, causing a -2 penalty to attack, but this is definitely not the -4 "Non-Proficiency" penalty. It's also too heavy for him to treat it as a "light" weapon, but he can still wield it in one hand.
So, by the RAW, he is proficient (but awkward) with this weapon.
This is all covered in the Core Rulebook, Equipment chapter, under "Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons" and also under "Weapon Size".
The halfling cleric is not proficient in short-sword, since short-sword is not a simple weapon. The original owner, the half-elf rogue was proficient.
Also as for the wealth being split up with the party when a character dies:
When that player brings in a new character, (at the now higher level) how do you work out the cash for that new character? Do you pull from the chart in in the book and say that is how much in gold their equipment is worth?
I usually give them about 1/2 that (or sometimes worse, depended on where the characters are when the new character joins them. For example, if they are out in the wilderness, I might have the new character start as wounded and missing gear. Then it becomes a bit of an adventure to help them get their gear back. ) This helps keep the cash balance in my games more even, plus helps to bring in replacement characters faster. (from the roleplaying point of view.) New characters, of course, start with wealth closer to the average for that level.