Shadowdark Shadowdark Discussion Thread [+]


log in or register to remove this ad


Plus nothing promises anyone a magical weapon they actually want to use. It might be magical maces all the way down.
When my players presumably defeat the cannibal hillbilly werepigs when we next play in May, there's a magical weapon coming their way -- the group's first, I think -- that 100% has a trait on it they don't care about it (and which will probably have no practical implications in the game) as a worldbuilding element. ("Wait, who is this sword extra good against? Who the heck is that? And who would put that trait on a sword?")

If they were in charge of saying what kind of magic weapons they'd get, "+1 in combat, +3 in worldbuilding roles" would be way down their list.
 

True, but that also goes both ways: in a game that rains magic items, the Paladin might actually be at a disadvantage.
Having two magic weapons rather than one is a pretty good disadvantage.
Between the sword and the horse it's honestly kind of a weird class.
Yes. But from the very beginning during the original Kickstarter campaign -- which had stretch goals to create the ranger and bard -- Kelsey has been clear that, in her mind, the four core classes are what the game is all about. (That's why their class titles cover nearly every possible minor class, leading to a lot of early fans getting upset when people asked for druids or assassins or other specialized classes -- "they're already in the game!")

So all of the classes she personally makes are intentionally extremely niche. Most of the time, for Kelsey, you should want a fighter, not a paladin. And if you want a paladin, it's going to be one that's all-in on her personal take of that class' fantasy. (See how quirky and how not-Diablo/traditional D&D her necromancer is.)
 

Doesn't that strike you as odd for an aspiring knight? Someone who by default must be a better hand to hand fighter than, say, the wizard? IDK about the optics there.

I was imagining a 12 year old kid who, yeah, is learning the basics of sword and shield but definitely isn't allowed to fight, unless its with wooden swords against other squires. THAT kind of squire, not the kind that is just about to become a knight.

EDIT: I just looked up my terminology. "Page" would be a better term than "Squire". Sorry, not a medieval scholar.
 

I was imagining a 12 year old kid who, yeah, is learning the basics of sword and shield but definitely isn't allowed to fight, unless its with wooden swords against other squires. THAT kind of squire, not the kind that is just about to become a knight.
Well the term squire covers both those possibilities. From a 'makes sense' stand point (forgive me) why would a paladin take a defenseless child out into the most dangerous possible environment?
 

EDIT: I just looked up my terminology. "Page" would be a better term than "Squire". Sorry, not a medieval scholar.
Perforce, to participate in this intellectual joust of gaming predilictions and theoretical discourse, you must become one forthwith, or consider thyself underarmed (clearly the antithesis of weal)! [/Gygax]
 

Well the term squire covers both those possibilities. From a 'makes sense' stand point (forgive me) why would a paladin take a defenseless child out into the most dangerous possible environment?

I dunno...why would ANYBODY go into those places?

Alternately, because he worships Memnon....?
 



Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top