Blowing up magic items, yes or no?

[hong]

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

Sure. And is it such a bad thing that a player doesn't like it if their beloved +5 sword, which they've had for six months' worth of gaming, gets destroyed? Is this a sign of "munchkinism" (whatever the heck that means), or is it a sign of immersion in the backstory of the game world?

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.

Once, sure. Twice, maybe. Three times, I'd be starting to look for a new game.

 

[Hakkenshi]

But the magic items in question (the Arcane Archer's bow in my game, the Greatsword in the original poster's game) were only destroyed once, as far as I know.

I think I've only used that tactic the one time!

Without making a habit of busting up weapons, I really don't see the harm in using it occasionally.

Sure. And is it such a bad thing that a player doesn't like it if their beloved +5 sword, which they've had for six months' worth of gaming, gets destroyed? Is this a sign of "munchkinism" (whatever the heck that means), or is it a sign of immersion in the backstory of the game world?

I see what you mean. But it can be both

That being said, I agree it's not meant to be a COMMON tactic. But a player shouldn't necessarily feel slighted because it's used against him once. If you've read my post above, you've seen how my Arcane Archer's dealt with the issue. We both had a good laugh over it.

Also, it specifically says in the description of certain monsters (like the Nightwalker, the Rust Monster, a few Epic monsters, etc.) that they target items. If you like using them, it seems silly to NEVER use their abilities. Again, though, I wouldn't use them as recurring villains

 

[Tom Cashel]

It's a lot more common in 3E, since Sunder was introduced.

I think it comes down to players throwing tantrums...over anything, be it losing a sword or losing their life. Tantrums are lame for the DM and lame for the other players. Suck it up. It's a game. The NPCs are trying to utterly destroy you. You must prevail. C'est la D&D.

I happen to think defining your character by his/her items, given their transient and fragile nature in the "numbers" aspect of the game (i.e. the odds say something bad will happen eventually, and it will probably be a result of dice rolls), is just plain lazy. It saves you the trouble of having a personality.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Re: Re: its good to be king

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".

Exactly.

The D&D rules treat magic items as commodities, like toilet paper. Many people complain about that on these boards. If you see things that way, disintegrate away!

If you do not want magic to be a "mundane" commodity, you as a DM have to show respect when the player/PC shows reverence for an item and attaches personal importance to it. Destroying an item just because it is a "legitimate tactic" doesn't cut it.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Tom Cashel]

What's good for PCs is good for NPCs.

In other words, when was the last time a PC fighter with Sunder held back from shattering the evil necromancer's staff because "it defined his personality"? Never. Which is why the NPCs should have the option as well.

The idea that magic items can (and may very well) be destroyed does not logically turn them into a "commodity," unless the DM always provides an instant replacement or a chance to buy a new one. If anything, the possibility of destruction would make items more precious and valuable.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I happen to think defining your character by his/her items, given their transient and fragile nature in the "numbers" aspect of the game (i.e. the odds say something bad will happen eventually, and it will probably be a result of dice rolls), is just plain lazy. It saves you the trouble of having a personality.

You are quite right.

Aragorn, Sauron, Elric, Arthur ... all the work of hacks.

Yes, I agree it can be the lazy route. But your reasoning is circular: items should be recognized as transient because they are transient. It is a valid enough position but the opposing view makes sense as well.

Just different viewpoints on heroic fantasy.

 

[Tsyr]

In my game Tom, the question would be "When was the last time a PC took sunder"

In my case, this whole discussion is moot... my world is very low magic, and if I even THOUGHT about destroying a players item, I would be lynched... because between the entire party, there are three magic items. It's a four person party. And only two of them are weapons. And replacement? Nope. Not gonna happen.

 

[takyris]

Well, both Aragorn and Sauron's entire plot perspective was that they had LOST magical items that were important to them. One disarmed, one sundered.

If a player was willing to lug around a broken sword that his father had passed to him with his dying breath, I'd be fine with eventually letting that puppy get fixed.

And Arthur's sword did break when he slew Lancelot in anger. The Lady of the Lake welded it back together (and I THINK she healed Lance, too).

So while the items were recovered, they DID break.

And from another perspective:

So wait, as a DM, I'm NOT supposed to treat the game like a story, because that's shoehorning players through plots, but I AM supposed to treat it like a story by doing the archetypal "Defined by Items" thing that is done in fiction? Reeeeeeeally. It kinda sounds like people want the protection afforded to plot-people (character won't die except heroically, items won't be sundered or stolen) with the freedom of game-people (no shoehorning through plots, never have to roleplay stupid decisions by person, etc.). As a DM, this gets the Raised Eyebrow of Doom.

-Tacky

 

[Tom Cashel]

You are quite right.

Aragorn, Sauron, Elric, Arthur ... all the work of hacks.

Yes, I agree it can be the lazy route. But your reasoning is circular: items should be recognized as transient because they are transient. It is a valid enough position but the opposing view makes sense as well.

Just different viewpoints on heroic fantasy.

It's not circular logic to point out that, by the rules, items are transient, and by pointing it out ask people to recognize it.

I completely disagree that Aragorn, Sauron, Elric and Arthur have personalities defined by their items. You're mistaking plot for character. To me, Aragorn was an heir who had fled his birthright, Sauron not really much of a "character" at all, Elric a hero doomed by his desires...and Arthur was far more defined as a character in his relationship with Merlin, his reaction to his wife's infidelity, his clashes with Morgan Le Fay and Mordred (do I have that right?) than the fact that he'd pulled the sword out of the stone. Excalibur is a facet of his story, but he'd still be Arthur if he lost it.

And finally, what the heck do any of those characters from fiction have to do with D&D fighters? Not much, really.

And from another perspective:

So wait, as a DM, I'm NOT supposed to treat the game like a story, because that's shoehorning players through plots, but I AM supposed to treat it like a story by doing the archetypal "Defined by Items" thing that is done in fiction? Reeeeeeeally. It kinda sounds like people want the protection afforded to plot-people (character won't die except heroically, items won't be sundered or stolen) with the freedom of game-people (no shoehorning through plots, never have to roleplay stupid decisions by person, etc.). As a DM, this gets the Raised Eyebrow of Doom.

-Tacky

Exactly. There's a heck of a lot of meta-thinking and PC-thinking getting mized up around here...

 

[Hakkenshi]

Hey, Tacky, you're doin' some good thinkin' dere!

That totally backs up my "shattered-iconic-items-possibly-being-restored" shtick.

If a player was willing to lug around a broken sword that his father had passed to him with his dying breath, I'd be fine with eventually letting that puppy get fixed.

SHA-ZAM!
That's all I have to say to that