pawsplay
Hero
Howso? The Battle Scion granted full BAB and the Faith Scion and Spell Scion full casting progression.
Experiences with Weapons of Legacy
Howso? The Battle Scion granted full BAB and the Faith Scion and Spell Scion full casting progression.
Jack7
First Post
I thought Weapons of Legacy was awesomesauce!!!
No, not really. I'm with those who thought it pretty much sucked.
But I liked the more general idea behind the concept. Yet as others said, execution, not so much.
Though to answer your question what I did was this:
1. Created Weapons with natural (inherent) limitations to prevent the weapons from becoming an artifact. Occasionally adding curses or at least hindrances that had to be overcome before the weapon could be fully exploited.
2. Forgot bonuses (like combat bonuses) altogether in favor of adding capabilities to the character. When the weapon was in the possession of the character then the character's capabilities increased rather than those of the weapon, and as the character progressed in levels often the weapon would compensate where the character had failed to advance. Say the character wanted to be more skillful in some way, but had lacked the points to dedicate to that skill then the weapon would compensate.
3. To assure the weapons were matched to the character, then abilities and advantages offered always matched those of the user-character.
4. Found out what kind of weapons the players most liked to use so that the WOL matched the character rather than trying to make the character match the weapon. For instance if one character liked using a spear best then that WOL which was a spear would work best for that particular character and would obviously favor being used and exploited by that character/player.
5. Allowed more subtle possibilities, such as enhanced good fortune or luck when possessed by a particular character, a sense of enhanced intuition, dreams and visions associated with the weapon, etc.
6. Occasionally the weapon would have an agenda of its own.
7. No rituals (these always struck me as highly artificial and contrived and not at all useful to the character himself) but rather occasional quests related to both the nature of the weapon and the nature of the character.
8. Often made them heirlooms and what not. Ancestral treasures. And employed mythological and ancestral backgrounds and legacies and capabilities rather than purely gaming ones.
9. Sometimes disguised the weapon's true nature.
10. Weapon wouldn't always transfer the same abilities or powers, and over time powers and abilities would change to fit the situation with the character. This could be used both beneficially to enhance the character, and on occasion malignantly, to limit what they had expected they would be able to do, but couldn't anymore.
And so forth and so on.
I think the problem with WOL, and I got the book, is that it was overcomplicated and micro-managed. As others have already said, no flexibility, no real bonding or individual association with the character (it was all about what the weapon could do through the character rather than what the character could do through the weapon) and so the progression of power was not organic, and character-centered, but artificial and device-centered. In short the legacy seemed a contrived and artificial thing in which the character played a secondary role, rather than the character shaping the legacy of the weapon with the help of the weapon. To me personally it was like so much else produced in that time-frame of D&D, all about superpowers and ever increasing power-scales, rather than heroism and characterization. Or put another way, power is a thing in and of itself, rather than something that arises naturally from the interplay between man and his world, and man and the things he creates.
To me the book was all about gaming and how gaming over-rulerization limits the imagination and limits characters, rather than enhances them. And that attitude did the same basic thing to the weapons.
Anywho, good luck with what you're doing. I'm off to bed cause tomorrow it's back to a normal work-week. First of the year.
No, not really. I'm with those who thought it pretty much sucked.
But I liked the more general idea behind the concept. Yet as others said, execution, not so much.
Though to answer your question what I did was this:
1. Created Weapons with natural (inherent) limitations to prevent the weapons from becoming an artifact. Occasionally adding curses or at least hindrances that had to be overcome before the weapon could be fully exploited.
2. Forgot bonuses (like combat bonuses) altogether in favor of adding capabilities to the character. When the weapon was in the possession of the character then the character's capabilities increased rather than those of the weapon, and as the character progressed in levels often the weapon would compensate where the character had failed to advance. Say the character wanted to be more skillful in some way, but had lacked the points to dedicate to that skill then the weapon would compensate.
3. To assure the weapons were matched to the character, then abilities and advantages offered always matched those of the user-character.
4. Found out what kind of weapons the players most liked to use so that the WOL matched the character rather than trying to make the character match the weapon. For instance if one character liked using a spear best then that WOL which was a spear would work best for that particular character and would obviously favor being used and exploited by that character/player.
5. Allowed more subtle possibilities, such as enhanced good fortune or luck when possessed by a particular character, a sense of enhanced intuition, dreams and visions associated with the weapon, etc.
6. Occasionally the weapon would have an agenda of its own.
7. No rituals (these always struck me as highly artificial and contrived and not at all useful to the character himself) but rather occasional quests related to both the nature of the weapon and the nature of the character.
8. Often made them heirlooms and what not. Ancestral treasures. And employed mythological and ancestral backgrounds and legacies and capabilities rather than purely gaming ones.
9. Sometimes disguised the weapon's true nature.
10. Weapon wouldn't always transfer the same abilities or powers, and over time powers and abilities would change to fit the situation with the character. This could be used both beneficially to enhance the character, and on occasion malignantly, to limit what they had expected they would be able to do, but couldn't anymore.
And so forth and so on.
I think the problem with WOL, and I got the book, is that it was overcomplicated and micro-managed. As others have already said, no flexibility, no real bonding or individual association with the character (it was all about what the weapon could do through the character rather than what the character could do through the weapon) and so the progression of power was not organic, and character-centered, but artificial and device-centered. In short the legacy seemed a contrived and artificial thing in which the character played a secondary role, rather than the character shaping the legacy of the weapon with the help of the weapon. To me personally it was like so much else produced in that time-frame of D&D, all about superpowers and ever increasing power-scales, rather than heroism and characterization. Or put another way, power is a thing in and of itself, rather than something that arises naturally from the interplay between man and his world, and man and the things he creates.
To me the book was all about gaming and how gaming over-rulerization limits the imagination and limits characters, rather than enhances them. And that attitude did the same basic thing to the weapons.
Anywho, good luck with what you're doing. I'm off to bed cause tomorrow it's back to a normal work-week. First of the year.
Last edited:
Yes, but you lost all the class abilities you might be getting if you weren't playing a wizard or sorcerer. Pity the Barbarian who wanted one of those weapons - they lost out on their new abilities.
Don't even think about playing an Eldritch Knight or a Hexblade.
The problem with the Scion classes is they removed all flexibility from what sort of character you could play with it: a class with very few special abilities was it. They turned the weapon into a prestige class, but rarely a prestige class you actually wanted.
Meanwhile, the Legacy Items allowed you to continue in your class, albeit with a reduced effectiveness. The most significant drop in effectiveness was with the fighter-types: a -3 to hit was just too harsh. (Mind you, fighters tended to hit way more than anyone else anyway, so perhaps it wasn't). All the Legacy Items I designed - and we had about 5 in my games - didn't use that progression.
The penalties for spellcasters were much less severe. The primary one was that you lost your 2nd highest spell slot. (There was a contradiction in the book about whether you'd lose one spell of each slot or only the highest one; the primary text said only the highest one, so that's what we used).
I discovered that once you designed your own Legacy Items, they became extremely effective and interesting. They added greatly to the campaign. One of the best was an item that held the souls of several powerful priests and wizards - it was intelligent, which meant that it could cast healing spells or offensive spells in addition to the actions of the character who wielded it. That was fun.
Cheers!
pawsplay
Hero
A Hexblade would trading higher level curses and minor spellcasting improvements for a better weapon. The weapon is the new abilities. Obviously, the item can't be zero cost. The barbarian is not really in bad shape; he can still rage, and while his rage isn't as impressive as other barbarians' of his level, his sword shoots fireballs, heals him, whatever.
The Eldritch Knight would, indeed, have to choose which way to go. Unless, of course, you invented an Eldritch Scion which loses 1 casting level and has d8s for hit dice.
Unfortunately, the cost is character concept.
Unless you designed a character that was devoted around the idea of using this legendary weapon, or was the simplest of classes (fighter, wizard, sorcerer), you lost out massively. No prestige classes for you. No non-standard classes.
Given that I saw people designing their characters around the classes and prestige they took - and indeed, this was often the best way of approaching 3E - Scion weapons throw out all of that to give what is effectively just another prestige class.
pawsplay
Hero
Frankly, if a character doesn't fulfill their concept by 4th level, there is no concept. At that point, the Scion system isn't to blame, it's using a prestige class for your concept when you should be using a base class. Given that most new base classes were not out when UA was written, you might need to make some tweaks to the system. Just about anything should be workable with 10 levels of X plus 10 levels of Scion. Maybe something is worth cooking up for Eldritch Knight and Duskblade, but honestly, if they go the Spell Scion route, they are getting full casting and a ton of magical abilities anyway.
So maybe a new Scion class for Bards, Duskblades, and fighter-mage prestiges class types.
Remathilis
Legend
Actually, The problem isn't loss of PrC bonuses, its the fact that all classes* lose out to gain the legendary weapon. Fighters, Clerics, Sorcerers, and Wizards lose the least. Bards give up new bard songs (swift scion grants up to 3 levels of bardcasting, but not new musics) barbarians give up rage powers, paladins spells and increased smite/lay on hands, druids wildshape, etc. (Rogues, Monks, and Rangers can keep up thanks to the bonus class feature in swift, but rogues lose skill points and rangers Bab/Hp).
* That's even more exacerbated in Pathfinder; where you give up a whole SLEW of powers to multi-class. Those scion PrCs look downright aenimic unless your getting a Staff of the Magi out of the deal! Of course, I guess you could create a bard scion, druid scion, barbarian scion, etc...
pawsplay
Hero
And gain powerful weapon abilities. That's the point. Sorcerers get kind of a free ride, as they lose out on familiar progression, and that's it. The only way around that is to either use less powerful items, use a feat-based system, or give each character one item as a freebie.
They would need to be revised for Pathfinder, no question. I think the four categories, maybe five, still work, though. I think Barbarian Scion is a really odd concept, unless you have an item that is intended only for barbarians and only grants rage abilities in addition to the item powers.
I'm sorry you don't like 3e.
pawsplay
Hero
What do you mean?
