The drawbacks to basing your PC around an item.


Gamer Life General Discussion

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I remember back in 3rd edition, a friend of mine created a gnome cleric who had a custom magic item, a glove I think it was, that would enable him to heal from 30ft away. Well to make a long story short, we ended up on a ship and were attacked by a giant squid. Well the gnome ended up dying and being tossed overboard. Well his body sank to the bottom but before that, the DM said after he died the squid had pulled one of the arms off and it was laying on deck. The point was that we could use the arm to have the gnome rezd. Well the arm that came off was not the one with the glove and the player told us not to bring him back because the glove was gone. It was a very good character but the player didn't care because it was all about the glove.

Ever have this happen?


If it was made once, it can be made again - unless it was an artefact.

So: no. Never seen it happen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yep soul, and an actual minor problem for this hobby.

Fixation is weakness and creates an immediate hit to morale if the item in question is gone, unavailable or damaged. The Buddhists knew this, Miyamoto Musashi knew this (and warned against having a favourite weapon).

While they won't deal with a glove, any metal item is highly vulnerable to rust monsters and rust lords. Anything pretty can be stolen, destroyed, lost.

Players should be discouraged from this, I have heard a person say an item was "essential for their character concept". Urrgh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While there are LOTS of nifty items I want my character(s) to possess, none of them are so vital that I'd pout and sulk if I didn't have them.

Oh, I'd be pissed if I HAD it and then LOST it, but that just means I go get it back, or take the cost out of the hide of whomever was so rash as to destroy my beloved toy(s).

To actually answer the question, uh, no can't say I've ever seen someone abandon a character because they lost a spiffy magic item.

[And, geez... isn't there a Feat that lets one heal with reach?]

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I had a DM who captured us, tied us up and left us naked, by DM fiat BTW, so often that I swore that the next PC I made would be a monk/sorcerer, just so I'd still function when deprived of all my gear (again!).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Players should be discouraged from this, I have heard a person say an item was "essential for their character concept". Urrgh.

They should take a tip from Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. Named weapons are awesome, but there's no reason you can't just give the name to whatever weapon of that type you happen to be carrying :)


Depends.

Home games can often have items get recovered.

In Society, you can get pretty hosed if you lose items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I had a DM who captured us, tied us up and left us naked, by DM fiat BTW, so often that I swore that the next PC I made would be a monk/sorcerer, just so I'd still function when deprived of all my gear (again!).

Ha ha, one reason the vow of poverty monk was attractive in 3.5, poor dms who love the dm fiat imprisonment and losing everything.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I had a DM who captured us, tied us up and left us naked, by DM fiat BTW, so often that I swore that the next PC I made would be a monk/sorcerer, just so I'd still function when deprived of all my gear (again!).

Sounds like one of those situations where every time you go to a city you just strip at the guard gates and let yourself into the jail closing the door behind you.


:)
One of the rewards the players just received was there very own cell and key, in the cliffs around a city.

Monster poaching town, so they can use this cell to store items (it gets really dark towards the back), put monsters in to later sell on, or rest in (which they have been doing). It is patrolled, so not bad security.

I'd rather give my players something atypical than take everything away from them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:

:)

One of the rewards the players just received was there very own cell and key, in the cliffs around a city.

Monster poaching town, so they can use this cell to store items (it gets really dark towards the back), put monsters in to later sell on, or rest in (which they have been doing). It is patrolled, so not bad security.

I'd rather give my players something atypical than take everything away from them.

Building at least a vault is always a high-priority item for my characters; getting something like the above would be awesome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If they ever need to get rid of an item, the rust monsters behind the wooden portcullis are just a few doors down. If they want to get rid of a body, the giant wolves, subterranean lizard or barghests are just a bit up.

Best vault I had was for a doppelganger assassin pc. Quite a large lair under a graveyard (supposedly haunted, but not really). Guards would be on watch at the gate, so would have to avoid them whenever the pc came home (keep those skills sharp). Inside the hideaway? Reading/finer things in life room, loot rooms, training rooms and acid-filled Roman bath (body disposal was free for all contracts).

Avoid guards, over gate, open secret door, close sealing myself below, head to bath, drop in body, clean up, recline and have a drink.


Just realised, the biggest drawback around basing your pc around an item, is that they aren't a character--not a fully fleshed out one anyway, if an item is more important than anything else.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Reminds me of a French RPG where the item is (also) a character : the GodWeapons from the game Bloodlust.

You guys realize that jedi knights do have a fixation about lightsabers, right ?

If a player feels that strongly about something his character owns, I say let him be. Of course, you can be a jerk GM and specifically try to get rid of his item. Just as you could decide that he gets his arms hacked off.

It is the player's choice when he prefers to stop playing his character, whatever his reasons are, and it should be respected.


Fantasy and pop-culture are full of heroes and villains who are based around particular items. Thor, Sauron, Witchblade, and the Green Lanterns are the first to come to mind.

Also, with the mythic playtest, item/artifact-based weaknesses were popular enough to be proposed by more than a few people, myself included. It's not a dick-move for a GM to make such weaknesses come into play once in a while any more than it is to hold a paladin to their code. The problem is when a GM resents the player for their character's special item (or paladinhood) and instead of talking it over with the player OOC pulls some passive-aggressive stunt IC to effectively ruin the character. (Harping on such a thing obsessively and beyond suspension of disbelief also qualifies IMO.)

Really, it boils down to a matter of trust and communication between GM and player. You could encounter the same difficulties with a wizard and their spellbook, a cleric and their relationship with their deity, etc.

Silver Crusade

The black raven wrote:

Reminds me of a French RPG where the item is (also) a character : the GodWeapons from the game Bloodlust.

You guys realize that jedi knights do have a fixation about lightsabers, right ?

If a player feels that strongly about something his character owns, I say let him be. Of course, you can be a jerk GM and specifically try to get rid of his item. Just as you could decide that he gets his arms hacked off.

It is the player's choice when he prefers to stop playing his character, whatever his reasons are, and it should be respected.

Let him be what?

You talk about respecting the player but when you are five characters in and you still can't make up your mind then the respect is gone. You obviously don't respect the DM enough to know that it may be tough to keep adding in new characters. If you die then fair enough but when you base your character around an item and something happens then that's your fault and you need to suffer the consequences. You knew ahead of time the risk you took in basing your character around something that could be destroyed or lost. Now certain classes that are based around weapons, Bladebound Magus, have built in ways to regain that item but when you have a customer item that isn't part of a class feature then the blame is all on you and it's not fair on the DM and the other players if you keep dropping characters every time something bad happens.

I will let a player drop a character only twice, after that you play whatever race is available in the area and nothing after that unless you die and are forced to bring in someone new.


Laithoron wrote:

Fantasy and pop-culture are full of heroes and villains who are based around particular items. Thor, Sauron, Witchblade, and the Green Lanterns are the first to come to mind.

Yeah, well, look where that got Sauron. He went from being Morgoth's #2 and rising to the top of the charts with a bullet to a shadow of his old self and vulnerable to stealthy halflings because he decided to rely on a gizmo.

With respect to Thor and Green Lanterns, those are also superheroes and the superhero genre is a lot different from fantasy. It's acceptable to be based on some gizmo that supplies your powers whether it's a magic walking stick/hammer combo, a power ring, a suit of powered armor, or an indestructible shield. On the fantasy side of things, part of the stories often revolve around how a character performs without his signature items like Elric's summoning or otherwise attempting to do without Stormbringer.


Well, Thor was a god first so I think the fantasy bit still applies.

Anyway, I've never actually seen this happen. I think the closest we came to that was when our Sorcerer was taken back to Hell by his daddy (Good ol' Asmo himself) and forgot to drop the Golden Lion trinkets he had that we loved so much.

Manly tears were shed at the loss of that loot, but we got over it.


Bill: Your argument drawing a distinction between the tropes of superheroes vs. fantasy heroes doesn't resound with my experiences.

I very much see the characters in my PbP as superheroes (and challenge them as such), yet it is still very much a fantasy story. Also, I've seen a good number of superhero stories where GL loses the use of his ring, SuperGirl loses her powers, etc. and they still need to prove themselves heroic in spite of it — same trope, different genre. Lastly, there are 3.5 era D&D books such as 'Weapons of Legacy' that are based around the concept of item-centric characters.

Anyway, the point that I was trying to make (which I didn't perceive any disagreement from you on) was this:

Is every option right for every group? No. That's why players and GMs need to be upfront with one another about their desires, goals, and expectations. As with almost every impasse that gets brought up on these boards, it comes down to trust and communication, not pulling a passive-aggressive bait-and-switch on a player to teach them a lesson.

Silver Crusade

Laithoron wrote:

Bill: Your argument drawing a distinction between the tropes of superheroes vs. fantasy heroes doesn't resound with my experiences.

I very much see the characters in my PbP as superheroes (and challenge them as such), yet it is still very much a fantasy story. Also, I've seen a good number of superhero stories where GL loses the use of his ring, SuperGirl loses her powers, etc. and they still need to prove themselves heroic in spite of it — same trope, different genre. Lastly, there are 3.5 era D&D books such as 'Weapons of Legacy' that are based around the concept of item-centric characters.

Anyway, the point that I was trying to make (which I didn't perceive any disagreement from you on) was this:

Is every option right for every group? No. That's why players and GMs need to be upfront with one another about their desires, goals, and expectations. As with almost every impasse that gets brought up on these boards, it comes down to trust and communication, not pulling a passive-aggressive bait-and-switch on a player to teach them a lesson.

Nobody is saying that you can't base your character around an item but what people need to accept is the fact that in this game, you can lose or have that item destroyed. Now your GM may grant that item immunity but don't think that is a rule because it's not. Some people tend to think the game is built around every playstyle because of Rule 0 but it's not.

Liberty's Edge

shallowsoul wrote:


Let him be what?

You talk about respecting the player but when you are five characters in and you still can't make up your mind then the respect is gone. You obviously don't respect the DM enough to know that it may be tough to keep adding in new characters. If you die then fair enough but when you base your character around an item and something happens then that's your fault and you need to suffer the consequences. You knew ahead of time the risk you took in basing your character around something that could be destroyed or lost. Now certain classes that are based around weapons, Bladebound Magus, have built in ways to regain that item but when you have a customer item that isn't part of a class feature then the blame is all on you and it's not fair on the DM and the other players if you keep dropping characters every time something bad happens.

I will let a player drop a character only twice, after that you play whatever race is available in the area and nothing after that unless you die and are forced to bring in someone new.

Maybe the proper expression was let him do what he wants (English is not my native tongue).

I find it funny that dying is "fair enough" a reason to rebuild a character and losing your one-of-a-kind item is not when BOTH situations can happen in a game. That is unless you take extra special care that PCs never die.

If you forbid a player from changing a character "unless you die", then the PC will become suicidal. And if the player feels bad enough about having to bend to the GM's ways, his PCs suicidal actions might just end up in a TPK, if only to show the GM that this game is collaborative rather than confrontational and that players can mess the GM's fun too.


SS: Agreed, there are no guarantees in the rules as to character or inventory longevity/power. (I'd say the closest we get to any sort of 'guarantee' is the Wealth By Level table.) Also, as has been pointed out, there are many time-honored stories based around the trope of a character losing access to that Thing That Makes Them Special™. More often than not they seem to validate the protagonist as a hero in spite of the loss — which might explain their popularity.

As I see it, all worthwhile games (and even life itself) are based around the concept of risk vs. reward. Getting an item that is exceedingly powerful but that comes with no risks or drawbacks might be some players' dream, but its not balanced. Being as this is a cooperative game, a certain level of parity between characters is generally expected.

Also, given how popular the lost item/power trope is, it's certainly possible that the GM or even the player might want to explore such a storyline at some point. Dismissing or trying to secure some promise against that ever happening closes off a great many avenues of character exploration just as does a GM who has predetermined that every paladin WILL fall.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Basing a character around an item isn't necessarily a bad thing. It comes down to how the character is based around the item. IS it for flavor in the sense that its a family heirloom or holds in-character sentimental value? Or perhaps its a personal quest the character is trying to finish based on their backstory. Such characters are fun to GM or game with. However, if its purely for the stat bonus or some nifty magic item ability, this becomes quite clear. Remember a character who had a ring of sustenance in a survival game straight off the bat because alot of fort saves for being fatigued or having insufficient food cropped up. There was nothing flavourful about the way the character played their attachment to such an item. Items, magical or otherwise are subject to being destroyed, stolen etc in the game. Asking for complete immunity to such phenomenon happening is more about the numbers game han actual role playing. In regards to the example on thor, Mjolnir did get broken at least once. Nowhere in the comics did he sit around and mope for a week because his precious hammer was now broken. It was only later on that the sorcerer supreme repaired it with mystical energies. In the meantime, simply adjusted tactics to using more unarmed attacks since he is still a very skilled unarmed combatant and has immense superhuman strength and speed.

Silver Crusade

I once had a 2nd edition fighter that was based on the idea that, instead of a high level fighter having an intelligent magic sword, I played an intelligent magic greatsword that had a high level fighter!

The fighter was called Kennet Steel (he looked like Kenneth Irons out of the Witchblade comic), and his mental stats were, how can I put this kindly, 'unremarkable'! The sword was called Havoc, and it's ego was such that it couldn't fail to dominate the wielder. Being good aligned, the sword 'interviewed' the potential wielder, and offered to enter into an arrangement where they willingly entered into a symbiotic relationship, dominated by the sword. When in control, the sword telepathically 'told' Kennet what to say, effectively speaking through him. When he was not wielding the sword he called himself Kennet Steel, but when the sword was in hand the gestalt entity called itself Havoc. There were two different personalities going on, but only one at a time.

So I was actually playing a magic sword who had a human as it's equipment! The combination was balanced for the adventure (level 17 IIRC) and against the other players. The DM and I had discussed the whole concept before the game even started, and nothing about it was a surprise to the DM and it was all okayed by him. Every other player who expressed an opinion thought it was a cool idea, and they were all happy with their own, brand new 17th level PCs who, like Havoc, had been made especially to be run through a published module that the DM had.

During play, the module was awful, and so was the DM. It turned out that he was trying to beat us rather then referee fairly. We couldn't see through invisible walls and if we were invisible the baddies knew that something was up somehow, which gave them a reason to Disbelieve our invisibility and could then see us perfectly!

Anyway, at one point we came across an obsidian wall blocking our path. One of the others tried to shatter it with a weapon but the weapon shattered instead. I thought I'd try to shoot it with a crossbow bolt.

Because of the symbiotic sword/human relationship, I (Havoc, the sword) was never sheathed, and my wielder had to have me in at least one hand at all times. I also didn't like my wielder to use any weapon but me, but since this wasn't combat but breaking an inanimate object I was okay with it. So my fighter held me backwards in his left hand, tilted me enough to get my hilt at eye level, then someone passed my fighter a loaded heavy crossbow. The DM said that I'd take penalties for firing in such a stipid way! I agreed! But since the wall didn't look particularly agile I thought my fighter could make the shot anyway!

My fighter squeezed the trigger and the bolt flew true, striking the wall. If the wall had some ability to shatter weapons that stuck it, then boo hoo, we'd lost a crossbow bolt.

The DM said that when the bolt hit the wall, it did no apparant damage, but the result was that my sword disappeared.

'...say what...?'

Your sword disappears.

'...where am I...'

Still in the corridor.

'I thought you said I disappeared!'

No, your sword disappeared, you are still in the corridor.

'But I am the sword! Where do I appear?'

You don't know. It's dark. You'll just have to play the human from now on.

There was a frank and articulate exchange of views.

He wasn't interested that I thought I was playing a sword. As far as he was concerned that was just fluff. The module said that attacking the wall would mean that the weapon breaks(?), and since breaking a crossbow bolt wouldn't hurt us (I know! That's why I did it!) my sword disappeared instead.

That didn't even make sense under his own rules, about any weapon stiking the wall breaking! Even if ammunition didn't count (why?) it should break the crossbow! By what mechanism did the inanimate wall somehow know that breaking the bolt that struck it wouldn't inconvenience the PCs enough? By what mechanism did it have the power to make creatures disappear as a logical extension of shattering weapons that struck it?

'It didn't make a creature disappear, just a sword.'

The sword is a creature! Intelligent weapons are creatures!

Well he's the DM and what he says, goes. (he was about 35 years old, in case you're wondering)

'How can I continue to play without my character? You knew from the start that the whole point was that I'm the sword, and the human is my equipment!'

I was just humouring you. You'll have to play Kennet Steel from now on.

As you can probably tell, this incident brings back bad memories to this day. I think the adventure was called 'Nightmare Keep' or something. The DM was meant to make things hard for us, but he went way past the line! After this incident, there was a time when we got hit by sleep gas. We had to make suspiciously hard saves or fall unconcious. Some of us made the saves, so he made us roll again next round. When some of us made that, he made us keep rolling until we failed the save.

We read the adventure after it was all over; there was only ever meant to be a single save, not an infinite amount until we all failed. Also, this trap only triggered if we didn't use the key we had spent the entire first part of the adventure successfully obtaining! When challenged about this after it was all over, the DM said he was supposed to make it hard for us.

After our enforced unconciousness we we stripped naked and thrown into a pit, watched by about 20 large creatures of some kind who were there to push us back into the pit if we escaped. At one point we were trying to get past them, and they were trying to stop us. We didn't have combat manoevres then, so I suggested that we make an opposed roll on either Str or Dex to get past. DM said no, the advantage always lies with the defender, so no roll could possibly be successful! I asked him how he would adjudicete an american football running play. He said that no running play could ever gain a single inch in his world.

Later, after somehow escaping, were were finishing off some small baddies who had wands. One little baddy had only a couple of hit points left, so he broke his own wand. Er...okay...wierd. Yeah, turns out that when wands are broken that their remaining charges explode in an area doing 1d6/charge remaining to everyone in the area, so we all take 45d6 damage. No save, because, y'know, you're in the area.

Ah, well, look on the bright side. At least now we know a way to deal massive damage quite cheaply just by breaking our own wands. Oh...er...no! It doesn't work for you....er...like that...it was a special wand!

Right, right, the old 'Retributive Strike' wand we've heard so much about, right. Where can we get one of those? We can't? What a surprise.

This was the last time he ever DMed for us. He still doesn't understand why, and thinks we're being unfair with him.


shallowsoul wrote:
Laithoron wrote:

Bill: Your argument drawing a distinction between the tropes of superheroes vs. fantasy heroes doesn't resound with my experiences.

I very much see the characters in my PbP as superheroes (and challenge them as such), yet it is still very much a fantasy story. Also, I've seen a good number of superhero stories where GL loses the use of his ring, SuperGirl loses her powers, etc. and they still need to prove themselves heroic in spite of it — same trope, different genre. Lastly, there are 3.5 era D&D books such as 'Weapons of Legacy' that are based around the concept of item-centric characters.

Anyway, the point that I was trying to make (which I didn't perceive any disagreement from you on) was this:

Is every option right for every group? No. That's why players and GMs need to be upfront with one another about their desires, goals, and expectations. As with almost every impasse that gets brought up on these boards, it comes down to trust and communication, not pulling a passive-aggressive bait-and-switch on a player to teach them a lesson.

Nobody is saying that you can't base your character around an item but what people need to accept is the fact that in this game, you can lose or have that item destroyed. Now your GM may grant that item immunity but don't think that is a rule because it's not. Some people tend to think the game is built around every playstyle because of Rule 0 but it's not.

Sure, but if the player IS basing his character around the item, the least you can do after stealing/breaking the item, is giving the PC a chance to retrieve/repair the item. If the player trusts the DM to not be an ass, he may accept to go a couple of levels without the item if he knows he can get it back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, the biggest problem isn't players being attached to those items, for me, it's that I don't want my character based around an item.

I want my character to be awesome, not because of the trinkets dangling off of the christmas tree he is, but for his skills, knowledge, and capabilities. That isn't to say I'm opposed to playing a character whose power comes from an item... but it's not my default. By default, I want to be awesome myself.

I haven't played a character explicitly based around an item recently, but one of my fighter types has a very customized sword (entirely DM created), which is so valuable that I've been paranoid about losing it for at least 10 levels now. To the point where I will spend a move action to sheathe it, instead of dropping it, and insisted almost as loudly about having the sword picked up as I did about having my corpse picked up. This isn't something I asked for, it's just what happens when you get an item that is character-defining. (The DM produced it, I think, because he wanted to power up the fighter in a party he knew wouldn't have a good way to craft or purchase magical weapons (very few crafters in the setting before you can access other planes, and adventures are often short and so close together that we can gain two levels while waiting for a +6 stat item commission to be completed). He did something similar for the rogue.)


I've GMed superhero games as well as fantasy games, and the same concept holds for both: If you've based your powers on an item, and if you lose the item, you lose your powers, please don't be surprised if you occassionally lose the item.

I have successfully run a PC in a D&D 3.5 game that was built around the concept that he was in possession of his grandfather's sword-- his grandfather being a former great hero of the Realm. The sword was said to be enchanted, but for the PC it was just a sword. The idea was that, using some home rules modified from the "Ancestral Relic" feat from The Book of Exalted Deeds and the "Legendary Weapons" rules from Unearthed Arcana, the weapon would increase in power with the character. (By the time the campaign ended, the sword was an intelligent, speaking +2 keen, wounding, Abyssal bloodiron bastard sword that shed dull red light as a torch for an hour after drawing the bood of an enemy. The PC was, of course, Lawful Good in alignment-- I loved the visual of an honest and upright noble fighter weilding such a creepy-looking blade.)

At one point, a bad guy disarmed my PC and disappeared with the sword, resulting in a side-quest to recover the weapon. But you need to expect that as part of the plot if you invest in such an item.

I allow a retooled version of this feat in my current Pathfinder campaign.

Silver Crusade

PhelanArcetus wrote:

Honestly, the biggest problem isn't players being attached to those items, for me, it's that I don't want my character based around an item.

I want my character to be awesome, not because of the trinkets dangling off of the christmas tree he is, but for his skills, knowledge, and capabilities. That isn't to say I'm opposed to playing a character whose power comes from an item... but it's not my default. By default, I want to be awesome myself.

I haven't played a character explicitly based around an item recently, but one of my fighter types has a very customized sword (entirely DM created), which is so valuable that I've been paranoid about losing it for at least 10 levels now. To the point where I will spend a move action to sheathe it, instead of dropping it, and insisted almost as loudly about having the sword picked up as I did about having my corpse picked up. This isn't something I asked for, it's just what happens when you get an item that is character-defining. (The DM produced it, I think, because he wanted to power up the fighter in a party he knew wouldn't have a good way to craft or purchase magical weapons (very few crafters in the setting before you can access other planes, and adventures are often short and so close together that we can gain two levels while waiting for a +6 stat item commission to be completed). He did something similar for the rogue.)

My biggest point is that a player needs to go in thinking that something could happen to the item, unless the DM says different. I also believe in trying to get the item back but I don't believe in a guarantee.


PhelanArcetus wrote:

Honestly, the biggest problem isn't players being attached to those items, for me, it's that I don't want my character based around an item.

I want my character to be awesome, not because of the trinkets dangling off of the christmas tree he is, but for his skills, knowledge, and capabilities. That isn't to say I'm opposed to playing a character whose power comes from an item... but it's not my default. By default, I want to be awesome myself.

I haven't played a character explicitly based around an item recently, but one of my fighter types has a very customized sword (entirely DM created), which is so valuable that I've been paranoid about losing it for at least 10 levels now. To the point where I will spend a move action to sheathe it, instead of dropping it, and insisted almost as loudly about having the sword picked up as I did about having my corpse picked up. This isn't something I asked for, it's just what happens when you get an item that is character-defining. (The DM produced it, I think, because he wanted to power up the fighter in a party he knew wouldn't have a good way to craft or purchase magical weapons (very few crafters in the setting before you can access other planes, and adventures are often short and so close together that we can gain two levels while waiting for a +6 stat item commission to be completed). He did something similar for the rogue.)

Despite the rarity of crafters...nowhere in that time did you think to put the Calling property on the weapon?


Putting Called on it sounds great, except for three problem points:
- First, I don't think the DM would allow it; he was running a pretty limited set of material, and I don't believe that was in there.
- Second, cost. The weapon was designed to scale with hit dice, and so the cost of adding a property would be based on the final value. Now, I could have sat down and argued that a +3 speed wounding keen bane (infidels) weapon is something that would likely have a called feature on it as well, but I didn't.
- Third, downtime availability. Since nobody in the party could enchant weapons, that meant we would have to either sit around a town (with a very powerful spellcaster) or leave the weapon behind, which was a transition down to a masterwork weapon. (Or spending a great deal of money on a backup.) Sitting around was most likely impossible (at one point, the DM arranged for us to have limited opportunities to create fast time demiplanes so we could get crafting downtime (but we only had craft wand and craft wondrous), due to how close together in time the adventures often were.

I never assumed that the item would be considered sacrosanct. In fact, I was very paranoid. There was one point when I did have to get into a fight with the DM over it - shortly after he revealed what the sword was, we got into a fight with a Remorhaz. What we didn't know was that hitting a Remorhaz with a weapon risks destroying the weapon entirely. (I suppose nobody succeeded at the appropriate knowledge check). At this point, two characters had unique and irreplaceable, DM-created swords. In my opinion, this was a bad design on the DM's part. The remorhaz was not telegraphed at all - we left the dungeon to find it standing at the entrance.

Much later, the DM put us against... something; I'm not sure what it was, which damaged your armor with every hit and, if it hit on a bite attack, got to make a sunder attempt. It sundered the rogue's (artifact) sword, basically unable to lose the opposed attack roll and doing more than enough damage to guarantee destroying the item. Given that we were messily trying to clean up a few plotlines simultaneously (actually jumping around in time), and this was on a sidequest for one party member that at least two of us thought was dumb, and had involved far more existential risk than we had anticipated... well, we got that whole adventure retconned.

Generally, if I'm going to intentionally play a character defined by a particular item, I think that something happening to that item should be a plot point, not a random roll. Someone tries to take your amazing sword because it's so amazing. Not "turns out this guy you're fighting likes to break peoples swords, and looks like he succeeded". If it does have to come through random crap, then it should at least become a plot point. Instead it had the feel of "well, guess you're screwed."


IF I remember right, adding a new property costs only as much as the property itself costs (2000 gold for that +1 bonus from Called), since you've already paid the cost for the other enhancements, but considering your GMs either inexperience or killer-ness you probably would never have had teh chance regardless.


Killerness, mostly. More recently he's been running one-shots (apparently he has time to master a module and run an all-day session, including backtracking changes made in the 3.5 versions of classic modules to make them more deadly), but not so much time to run his campaign). And in those one shots he's been taking positive glee in the misfortune of the party. We most recently did White Plume Mountain, and he was absolutely thrilled by how the party almost drowned due to a symbol of sleep, and we spent almost as much play time (and far more in-universe time) recovering from our wounds and afflictions than we did actually adventuring.

Also, I forgot the weapon also had defending. If called is a +1 bonus, then it would actually raise the effective enhancement bonus of the weapon, and that's the price point difference.
i.e. if the weapon was effectively a +9 bonus between enhancement bonus and abilities, adding another +1 would cost the difference between that and a +10 effective, or 38,000 gp.
And if I'm adding correctly, it was already a +11, once it finished scaling. Which goes off the chart, but would then be 46,000 gp; not that much worse, but a lot of money and a month and a half unable to go anywhere with that sword.

(Some armors have properties that are not priced as effective enhancement bonuses, but as straight gp costs; the skill bonuses & energy resistances, for example; those would be a fixed cost to add, regardless of the cost of existing features.)

I like that he recognized that fighters need a lot of help in a 15-minute adventuring day scenario (honestly, we need more help than a ridiculously high-quality sword, especially given the optimized opposition). But the extent of the difficulty of getting the equipment we want, and having so much power tied to equipment that I didn't even pick for myself frustrates me.

Still, in fairness, if any of my major equipment pieces were taken away, my effectiveness would drop dramatically; it's less a matter of reliance on a specific piece of gear and more a matter of reliance on gear in general. It just happens that this piece of gear is so valuable (roughly priced I'd call it about 242,000 gp), and my fallbacks are so weak in comparison (my next best weapons are a masterwork adamantine one and a +1 ghost touch) that it's a tremendous part of my equipment. In fact, it's more than a third of level 20 WBL. I've done calculations; switching down weapons reduces my effective damage output by 75-80%, all else being equal. A large part of that is the speed aspect, as we no longer a haste caster.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I once had a 2nd edition fighter that was based on the idea that, instead of a high level fighter having an intelligent magic sword, I played an intelligent magic greatsword that had a high level fighter!

The fighter was called Kennet Steel (he looked like Kenneth Irons out of the Witchblade comic), and his mental stats were, how can I put this kindly, 'unremarkable'! The sword was called Havoc, and it's ego was such that it couldn't fail to dominate the wielder. Being good aligned, the sword 'interviewed' the potential wielder, and offered to enter into an arrangement where they willingly entered into a symbiotic relationship, dominated by the sword. When in control, the sword telepathically 'told' Kennet what to say, effectively speaking through him. When he was not wielding the sword he called himself Kennet Steel, but when the sword was in hand the gestalt entity called itself Havoc. There were two different personalities going on, but only one at a time.

So I was actually playing a magic sword who had a human as it's equipment! The combination was balanced for the adventure (level 17 IIRC) and against the other players. The DM and I had discussed the whole concept before the game even started, and nothing about it was a surprise to the DM and it was all okayed by him. Every other player who expressed an opinion thought it was a cool idea, and they were all happy with their own, brand new 17th level PCs who, like Havoc, had been made especially to be run through a published module that the DM had.

During play, the module was awful, and so was the DM. It turned out that he was trying to beat us rather then referee fairly. We couldn't see through invisible walls and if we were invisible the baddies knew that something was up somehow, which gave them a reason to Disbelieve our invisibility and could then see us perfectly!

Anyway, at one point we came across an obsidian wall blocking our path. One of the others tried to shatter it with a weapon but the weapon shattered instead. I thought I'd try to...

Well you could have dug your heels in, "I have been playing the sword, you destroyed it without a save, I'll make a new char and see you in a few sessions, once my anger at this cheapness passes."

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The black raven wrote:

Reminds me of a French RPG where the item is (also) a character : the GodWeapons from the game Bloodlust.

You guys realize that jedi knights do have a fixation about lightsabers, right ?

Yes, but before they graduate from being Padawans, they're expected to make their own. Luke lost his first light saber at the end of Act 5, but he had made himself a new one by the beginning of Act 6, so aside from sentimental value, it wasn't that big a deal.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I once had a 2nd edition fighter that was based on the idea that, instead of a high level fighter having an intelligent magic sword, I played an intelligent magic greatsword that had a high level fighter!

This is an example of what I've highlighted elsewhere, a player/GM disconnect over which game was actually being played. I'm not going to make a conclusion as to which side bears the blame, but disconnects like these are a lightning rod sign of a dysfunction in the DM/group symbiosis.

Shadow Lodge

I once had a rogue who had a very much-loved ring of invisibility that he made a big deal out of that tore our party apart - it was such an intriguing game that I wrote an article about it.

I'd easily do it again.


I've never seen anyone do something as silly as the player in OP's group in the tables I've been in.

Personally, I care more about a character's personality and past than a singular item in said past or present.

Grand Lodge

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Players should be discouraged from this, I have heard a person say an item was "essential for their character concept". Urrgh.

Players? Hell, GMs should be discouraged from this. I've lost count how many times the characters in my group have been given Legacy weapons or armor by the DM. Those go, you're screwed. You lost skill points, hit points, save bonuses, gold, etc to level that thing up. Hell, you might even have a few feats taken up or class levels because of those things.


Sounds like legacy weapons are a bad idea.

As is making an adventure entirely magic item reliant, you must be this high or you explode as there are no solutions around the problems.


There are solutions... but they are entirely GM dependent.

It all comes down to that GM-player trust issue. With it amazing games happen where a piece of equipment can be significant to the story without being the sole focus of the character, and without it players are too paranoid to develop an attachment to the game or character, let alone something owned by the character.

I have had characters where a piece of equipment was significant to a character, but never as a sole focus of the character. In such cases I made sure that the GM (and other players) understood that it was important to the character -- the back story was known, the item's name was known, the fact that I put in character time and effort into the item was known... so the GM knew that messing with it was a significant event, and not something I would want him to do lightly (not that it couldn't happen, but it would be a focus for my character's immediate actions after something did happen to it).

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I remember a player who actually ended up playing an NPC for missions because he loved his magic greatsword so much, that when it was getting upgraded at 1000 gold a day, he would literally camp out IN the blacksmith's forge. He'd get him something to drink, make sure his food was prepped, everything, so that the blacksmith would put a full 8 hours into the weapon. He was also there just in case someone ever tried to steal it. So if we were ever called away for a mission, he'd play the NPC. It ended up that the NPC gained more levels than the actual PC.

Now, of course this is partially the fault of the GM. He shouldn't have purposely sent us off on missions on a regular basis when we needed to upgrade our gear.


I had one game where the GM gave one character a "legasy weapon" but the weapon grew in power as it learned to trust the player. By this I mean the sword was just a masterwork level weapon at first, then as the character leveled the weapon would gain various powers. Magic manifst, intellegence etc.

The GM and player worked together and it made a fun "sub-plot" to the overall game.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / The drawbacks to basing your PC around an item. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion