D&D 5E Scabbard of... Silence?

MrZeddaPiras said:

The players in my Tiranny of Dragons campaign acquired the intelligent sword Hazirawn and decided to use it. The sword is evil and it is currently held by a paladin, so it has been unable to charm him, but it started to complain and speak out in very bad moments. For example, it got the party into a fight the dragon at the end of HotDQ, while the players were trying dupe him. I thought it was very clever on my part, but one of the players almost rage-quit . Go figure. So the party wants to have a magical scabbard crafted, that will silence the sword as long as it is in it. I looked up the crafting rules in the DMG and I figured it would cost 2000 gp all included, considering the scabbard should have to be made with expensive materials to start with. So the artisan could start by asking 4000 gp, and drop down the price a little if the negotiations go well.

Any advice or suggestion on all the above?

Click to expand...

You can do that if you want. Seems a bit dull to me to just pay to get rid of it, though, personally.

I would make it a quest.

I would make it a quest that has to do with the history of the sword, the paladin's order, and that ties back into the Tyranny of Dragons storyline.

So, Hazirwan is Rezmir's sword, and it speaks Netherese. Not too much of a stretch to say it was made in Netheril. Netheril is one of the big antagonist groups in FR, and their ruins are all over the frickin' place. Maybe Rezmir found it in the early days of her assembling the Hoard. The easiest link would be to the Red Wizards - perhaps Azbara Jos and the sect of Red Wizards working with the Cult wanted to learn more about where Rezmir found Hazirwan, so they could pump it for magical secrets from the fallen empire.

Of course, now, the PC's have the chance.

As the party discusses getting a scabbard of put a sock in it, you glorified can-opener, they hear of a set of eerily silent ruins only a few miles from town (maybe Parnast, if you're that far, but really, wherever, it's not like Netheril wasn't all over the Sword Coast), where adventurers and (recently) Dragon Cultists have disappeared. Maybe the 4,000 gp they pay gives them that link - a map that leads to this location. Rumor has it that there's some powerful magic in there, generating a supernatural silence effect. As is often the case in Fantasy, rumor is basically right - these are Netherese ruins, and the silence effect is part of a prison for a phaerim, an effort to starve it of magic (the Paerim, though weak, is still alive and malevolent). The party can, indeed, bind the silence magic to a scabbard of their choice (a brief ritual outlined in the faded documents in the prison shows how a spellcaster can move the effect to different objects - but such things are not guaranteed, and take Arcana checks to pull off), but doing so will reinvigorate the phaerim held captive there.

If the party can find the ritual, conduct it, and slay the phaerim that escapes before it ravages the nearby countryside, they'll have themselves a nice little scabbard and maybe some bargaining chips with the Red Wizards (who are VERY interested in this story).

If they can't find the records, or they mess up the ritual, Hazirwan won't ever really shut up, so they'll either have to put up with it, or get rid of it. If the phaerim escapes, the party might have a bigger problem on their hands after the Dragon Queen is dealt with...

FYI, Shadowdweller00, you're wrong. Basic rules of logic and interpretation.

3.5 had the rule and specific clarification you are relying on.

5e does not have that specific clarification any longer.

By definition, that means the specific rule you're quoting was removed. If it was intended to still work that way, the specific clarification would have just been copied over. Instead, because the specific clarification is no longer there, it demonstrates that it was consciously left out.

Also, yeah, it's been said about a million times that prior rules (flanking, etc) don't apply. So no, looking back to other rules has no relevance anymore, and thank god for that.

RulesJD said:

FYI, Shadowdweller00, you're wrong. Basic rules of logic and interpretation.

3.5 had the rule and specific clarification you are relying on.

5e does not have that specific clarification any longer.

By definition, that means the specific rule you're quoting was removed. If it was intended to still work that way, the specific clarification would have just been copied over. Instead, because the specific clarification is no longer there, it demonstrates that it was consciously left out.

Also, yeah, it's been said about a million times that prior rules (flanking, etc) don't apply. So no, looking back to other rules has no relevance anymore, and thank god for that.

Click to expand...

Um, no. Basic rules of logic and interpretation would read this rule:

"If the bag is overloaded, pierced, or torn, it ruptures and is destroyed, and its contents are scattered in the Astral Plane."

As 'if the bag is pierced or torn' period. It doesn't say from outside. It doesn't say from inside. If you're suggesting that the bag cannot be pierced or torn from the inside, then you need to go find that rule. As it stands, logic says that if it's pierced or torn from any side, bad things happen.

Ovinomancer said:

Um, no. Basic rules of logic and interpretation would read this rule:

"If the bag is overloaded, pierced, or torn, it ruptures and is destroyed, and its contents are scattered in the Astral Plane."

As 'if the bag is pierced or torn' period. It doesn't say from outside. It doesn't say from inside. If you're suggesting that the bag cannot be pierced or torn from the inside, then you need to go find that rule. As it stands, logic says that if it's pierced or torn from any side, bad things happen.

Click to expand...

You're right it doesn't, so it can't be torn from the inside Previous editions had rules to allow it to be torn from the inside. 5e does not. Stick with what is written.

RulesJD said:

FYI, Shadowdweller00, you're wrong. Basic rules of logic and interpretation.

3.5 had the rule and specific clarification you are relying on.

5e does not have that specific clarification any longer.

By definition, that means the specific rule you're quoting was removed. If it was intended to still work that way, the specific clarification would have just been copied over. Instead, because the specific clarification is no longer there, it demonstrates that it was consciously left out.

Also, yeah, it's been said about a million times that prior rules (flanking, etc) don't apply. So no, looking back to other rules has no relevance anymore, and thank god for that.

Click to expand...

Yes exactly, it's nice that some people apparently feel they can cherry pick which rules to argue have carried over (even though they don't even exist in 5e) and which rules didn't whenever they feel it suits a claim they are making but that's just not how it works. This is 5e, not 1 - 4e. The rules for the past editions are not important when discussing 5e rules. If you want RAI, ask Jeremy Crawford on twitter. If you RAW, look at the rules and notice that what's being claimed here simply doesn't exist within the rule books!

Noctem said:

You're right it doesn't, so it can't be torn from the inside Previous editions had rules to allow it to be torn from the inside. 5e does not. Stick with what is written.

Click to expand...

Where do you see that it cannot be torn from the inside? It says, simply, 'if torn -> bad things.' You would think that, given the bad things, they would have said so if they really meant 'if torn' to be 'if torn, but not from the inside, that's intornable.' They didn't, leaving it as 'if torn.' Inside, outside, frontside, backside, WEST SIDE!, doesn't matter. 'If torn -> bad things.'

I haven't read the replies, but I find the idea of a scabbard of silence simply a great idea. It's like putting duct tape on a loud talker's mouth. But... imagine how frustrated this loud talker would be when it's finally free to talk... I would have the sword show some dirty language when it is freed from its forced mute.

I'm thinking...

A little from column A:



A little from column B:



A little from column C:

Yea, I just gave you the short version. The players knew the sword was intelligent and evil. They acquired it at the end of one session, and before the next one the player of the paladin character asked if he could keep the sword and basically try to to reason with it. I was vague and I said I needed to look up better how intelligent swords worked (which was true). I forgot to talk to the player before the next session, when the incident with the dragon happened, hence all the rage. So it was my fault for mismanaging the players, though I don't believe I should have to manage the players at all.

Click to expand...

Yeah, if you showed the gun (talking evil sword) in a previous scene, then it's proper storytelling. I probably would have made it a thing, though, rather than leaving it at "can we keep it?" at the end of one session and then picking the game back up with an unremarked "well, I guess they kept it." Well-foreshadowed (not heavy-handed) trouble is the most fun.

I haven't read the replies, but I find the idea of a scabbard of silence simply a great idea. It's like putting duct tape on a loud talker's mouth. But... imagine how frustrated this loud talker would be when it's finally free to talk... I would have the sword show some dirty language when it is freed from its forced mute.

Click to expand...

Great minds think alike.

Danny, I say go with Foghorn. He's always been my favorite to impersonate.

"Now, who ah-say who is responsible for this unwarranted attack on mah puh-son?"

"You're doin' it all wrong boy!"