Blowing up magic items, yes or no?

[Dragonblade]

Its all a matter of style and taste. And you are right in saying that characters ought to behave realistically, but a player who likes to define his characters by his items shouldn't be penalized for doing so or made to feel like he is whining because an item that was essential to his character's identity has been destroyed.

To you its just an item, but to him you have just "killed" his character. Damn straight he is going to be upset.

Yes, in a sense its meta-gaming. But we are playing a GAME after all, even though some people lose sight of that fact. For some the enjoyment of the game comes from having a hero who is similar to other literary heros that they admire. Or perhaps his character is quite unique, yet as in literature, the players image of his character is partially defined by his abilities (granted by items in the case of D&D).

Why should that player be penalized because his DM is on some power trip and likes to show the players he is in charge by destroying items every once in a while?

Now if the PC goes and sticks his sword in the waters of the Pool of Disjunction, I have no sympathy for him. But in the normal course of play, major character defining items should be pretty safe.

 

[Telor]

The years I've played 2e, none of my GMs really allowed (or implemented) the ability to upgrade magic items.

You went along with your +1 Acidic Longsword until that +2 Keen Longsword turned up in that dungeon with the necromancer. You certainly didn't sell the old item either, someone kept it for one reason or another, or at the very least you'd donate it to further 'the cause'.

Since I began DM'ing 3e I liked the idea that people could upgrade their weapons. Every single one of my players has a name for their main weapon (even my sorcerer who seldom uses his shortspear). All of us have upgraded rather than taking that shiny new randomly generated weapon. A few battles ago they encountered an opponent designed to hinder them a great deal. They were unknowingly being watched as they infiltrated enemy territory. This particular organization encountered them before and knew what to expect.
The bad-guy sundered the fighters main weapon (the fighter has 4 feats invested in his weapon). Since he didn't have a backup for his main weapon (2handed greathammer, homebrew creation) he lost a lot of his abilities.

I would say that fighters especially can be defined by the weapons they wield and that losing a great weapon that received so much focus can be worse than death. This particular fighter is going to take the Weapon Master PrC... if he doesn't bring a back up after that he is in for a grave lesson.

Our cleric in our group has an intelligent bastardsword that is his deity's avatar, losing that would obviously have dire consequences.

Even with all of this evidence that suggests items are more important in 3e than earlier editions I still believe that item destruction is a fair tactic. It wouldn't be much fun, if the only loss characters could experience was experience.

Besides, "It's a dangerous business.... stepping out your door."

-Telor

 

[pseudo_hero]

its good to be king

well I'm surprised and delighted by all this feedback. I think of myself as a good DM because I can detach myself from the people I play with and role play the villains as their pre-detirmened personality dictates. It took several years to get good at this, but I can honestly say I never put players in their place because they are role playing like goobers. I'll just toss the player after the game it finished.

That said, I'm glad eveyone notices that the situation was not personal or a DM/player vendetta. The fact is if you go looking for trouble, your gonna find it. I believe and it seems every one else believes that a character is measured by what he can do despite all the odds and set backs. I personaly don't enjoy playing (when I get the chance) unless my character steps out of that dungeon with 1/2 or less his HP, scarred for life, and victorious. How exciting would the Lord of the Rings flick have been if Gandolf (spelling?) looked at the Balrog and said "oh, hold on, diefic cone of cold coming up "boooosh" ok no more Balrog"? It would have sucked ass! He gets dragged down into the depths with the beast and has to fight it on it's terms. And from what I hear he still whoops it's ass.

Would spider-man be spider-man without his danger sense? YES Would he still be spider-man without super strength? YES He crawls on walls and slings webs. Thats all spider-man needs to be spider-man. Just like all a fighter needs to be a fighter is a kick-butt attack bonus, lots of HP and tons of feats. And those are not item dependent.

Last note, when the bad guys blew up James Bond's car, did he remark "oh bloody hell! Just kill me, get it over with, wihout my car I'm nothing". I don't think so.

 

[Xarlen]

Equally, speaking of Literary works, aren't there many stories or whatnot of where a hero *loses* those special powers, so that he must use his resources to overcome a challange?

A mage who loses the ability to cast magic is then a Very Smart Commoner. Using one's wit and knowledge to overcome riddles, or to outsmart foes, or create effective tactics for someone else.

A fighter who loses his strenght must find a different way then just beating his foes into a pulp.

Isn't, in the movies, the hero usually does something that isn't overly offensive, but is often effective? Shooting this, that blows up that, that kills the villain. Using his belt to get the villain to cut his own throat when yanked. So on.

 

[Dark Dragon]

Do I know you? 3 out of 5 of those have happened in my current campaign.

What from the possibilities happened? (I used the thing with the dragon and the Nightwalker in my current campaign. The group accumulated too many magic items, when other DMs sat on the throne. So it was time to put them back in line with the rules...)

Hmmm, is your char a member of this partially insane group that calls itself "die Bewahrer" (the preservers)??? The insane part is our cleric of Tempus (CN) who likes to torture captured enemies (but his will is nearly broken ,because he was a "guest" of some drows for a while), also we have a halfling rogue (NG) who hates the priest and loves the assassin, a druid/wizard (N) who has no problems to cast a fireball on allies or a geas on the halfling, another druid (N) who hates the priest for his fire spells, a very cautious (hmm, ok, paranoid) cleric/rogue (CN) of an elven CN god, who tries to hide his cleric part, the good side of the group is the fighter/ranger/paladin of Torm (his god is still dead, the campaign takes place during and after the Time of Troubles) and the evil part (my char) is an elven rogue/assassin/wizard (NE), currently polymorphed (because he was reincarnated as a boar...)

Ok, that was OT...

Would spider-man be spider-man without his danger sense? YES Would he still be spider-man without super strength? YES He crawls on walls and slings webs. Thats all spider-man needs to be spider-man. Just like all a fighter needs to be a fighter is a kick-butt attack bonus, lots of HP and tons of feats. And those are not item dependent.

Last note, when the bad guys blew up James Bond's car, did he remark "oh bloody hell! Just kill me, get it over with, wihout my car I'm nothing". I don't think so.

Yap, right. If a PC is just played only by his magical equipment, things get boring. Of course the player begins lamenting when one of his precious items gets lost. But from time to time, the PCs should be remembered their "early" days, when they had no magic items, just a weapon or two, some spells and (hopefully) a good sense for the situation laying before them and how to handle it the best way. With other words, they had only their skills and feats to combine, not more. After all, it should be role playing, so one should play a char, not a weapon rack or treasure chest, IMO.
I used a, hmm, hard way as a DM (the party lost all its equipment and most of its spells), and let them try to get out of that situation. After all, they managed it, but obviously, most players got too "attached" to their char's equipment and were not happy about the losses (with some negative impact on role playing ).

 

[Hakkenshi]

Using his belt to get the villain to cut his own throat when yanked. So on.

Oh yeah, Fist of Legend, baby!

 

[hong]

Re: its good to be king

Would spider-man be spider-man without his danger sense? YES Would he still be spider-man without super strength? YES He crawls on walls and slings webs. Thats all spider-man needs to be spider-man.

Heh. Note that the web-slinging thing is a result of his gear, the movie notwithstanding.

As to how items fit into the world: it's interesting that, on the one hand, people get indignant whenever players get attached to their character's items. On the other hand, they also get indignant that the prevalence of magic items in the game makes magic "mundane": a substitute for technology.

In a modern game, it's entirely logical and reasonable for characters to treat their items as disposable. After you've taken out your target, you don't need that sniper rifle anymore; you can dump it to help make your getaway (after smashing the important bits). The rifle is just a tool; you can always get another one, assuming you have the money.

It doesn't work like that in fantasy. Arthur wouldn't be who he was if he didn't pull the sword from the stone, or if he didn't have Excalibur (the symbol of his right to rule). Ditto for Charlemagne and Joyeaux, Roland and Durandal, and Ogier and Cortana. Raistlin and every other damn wizard in every fantasy trilogy had their staffs. In medieval/mythic Japan, there's the whole cult of the sword, centred around the katana. In fantasy, items have as significant a place in the world as actual characters.

What does this mean? It means that you can't have it both ways. If you want your players to treat magic with some degree of reverence or respect, then you should be trying as hard as possible to encourage them to develop that emotional attachment to their items. And that means treating swords and other major items with just as much respect as you want your players to treat them. No disintegrating or sundering without a darn good reason, in other words. If you treat items as disposable, don't be surprised if your players do the same. And don't complain that magic is "mundane".

 

[jasper]

ICKY NASTY TRICK

Hi my Williard the Illusionist.
This is my pet dire rat Ben
This is my kitty cat Morrus

El ravanger " head shot to rat B.A. Nat 20 Ben there done rat"

B.a. "roll a twenty sider please"

"5"

The head of rat turns into a rust monster. It bounces down the hallway. You are clutching a hand full of rust.

Whaaa!

If player is so attached to magic items do what mommy do. You don't get any thing till you learn how to play nice. Suck it up and roleplayer.

 

[Hakkenshi]

But I'm not saying magic is mundane! I'm saying that sundering, disintegrating, etc. is a valid tactic.

Also, I was arguing that if there is in fact some mystical bond between the item and the character, that its destruction should be cause for a quest to restore it somehow, or to replace it. Fantasy and myth are full of those stories.

 

[Tsyr]

The reason I rarely destroy magic items:

Taking them away is, IMHO, a better choice.

Taking them away, the character doesn't feel... spited, I guess. And there is the chance to recover them. Having to use "lesser" weapons for a while becomes a lot more palatable if an "old friend" is wating for you at the end of the "journey".