Blowing up magic items, yes or no?

[Tzarevitch]

Re: Re: Re: its good to be king

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.

Yes you can because they have nothing to do with each other.

What does the the nature of commodity of the item have to do with respect tha a foe should show for it? That argument makes no sense. You are assuming there is a link between an item's value to its owner and the level of threat that same item poses to a foe.

If your fighter comes wielding the +5 Vorpal weapon against the Jaberwock and that is the only weapon that can hurt said jaberwock, that jaberwock would have to out of its (admittedly puny) mind to not to destroy the weapon.

Take your argument to the extreme. You imply that because the +5 vorpal weapon is a valuable commodity to a character who owns it and he attaches personal importance to it, the DM should not have the the foe take the logical step of destroying the item even if that would allow the foe to preserve his own life. In short, the bad guy shoud not smash the PC uber weapon simply because it is the PC uber weapon and the PC likes it . . . a lot.

Yeah right.

My balors and pit fiends will certainly smash whatever +3 weapon the fighter shows that he can damage them with, ESPECIALLY if it is the only one they have or if the PC particularly likes it.

Heck, in the Birthright game I play in, a PC had a 1500 year-old dwarven heirloom +3 something, something shortsword that the Dwarf King specifically gave him for his help. The PC had that weapon for a year in real time (4 years game time) and used it as his signature weapon . . . until a fight with a group of babau demons. He sneak-attacked a babau with the sword. The pissed off babau then broke the weapon with its acid claws and acided the pieces.

The player was not happy (to put it kindly) but he took it like a champ. Especially after said babau then killed him because he no longer had a magic weapon that could injure them. After we raised the PC, he went back to the dwarves and they commissioned a new one for him, exactly like the old one, but reinforced with more hardness and acid resistant this time.

Tzarevitch

 

[takyris]

As a side note, one character in my campaign has unofficially taken the title of "Arlemis, the Buckler-Bane."

No buckler lasts more than three gaming sessions with him. He ALWAYS rolls the dang 1, and then he ALWAYS rolls "shield". It's hilarious. Hovering Buckler, Buckler that gave Acid Resistance 15 -- he's lost them all. It's beautiful.

We play it up at this point. There was a fight in the middle of a town market, and his character took a lightning bolt and blew his save, and we decided that he had tripped while trying to dodge, stumbled into an armor-dealer's table, and that a +3 Mithril Buckler of Fire, Acid, and Cold resistance had fallen from the top shelf and landed on his arm right as the lightning bolt hit.

I'll be introducing an intelligent buckler who is terrified of Arlemis some time next year.

-Tacky

 

[Hakkenshi]

We play it up at this point. There was a fight in the middle of a town market, and his character took a lightning bolt and blew his save, and we decided that he had tripped while trying to dodge, stumbled into an armor-dealer's table, and that a +3 Mithril Buckler of Fire, Acid, and Cold resistance had fallen from the top shelf and landed on his arm right as the lightning bolt hit.

Man, you're positively EVIL, like the fru-its of the Dev-il!

 

[Xarlen]

Exactly.

If I am a BIG Evil dragon, and I know:

. There is a group headed toward me who wants me dead, period, wants my blood, will stop at nothing.
. Has weapons of moderate power, but definetly not enough to harm me, because I'm a Big Evil Dragon.
. They have a sword of Dragon slaying.

Am I going to just kill them? NO! I'm going to destroy that sword *first*. Because even if I kill the guy who is best at wielding it, then dangit, his barbarian friend can just pick it up. If not him, then that sneaky elven rogue, or those durn clerics. If not that, then they'll just get everyone raised, and come after me again with that sword.

I'm going to have every agent at my disposal try and steal it/destroy it/Get It Away from that party. Then, when I have it, when I destroy it, I then see to their deaths. Because I'm a Big Evil Dragon, and without that dragonslaying weapon, they're not going to Touch me.

 

[pseudo_hero]

Big Evil Dragons

I like big, evil dragons. They are so...big...and evil.

 

[hong]

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.

Items are exactly as transient as the group makes them. Just because there are rules for breaking items doesn't mean it should happen all the time, or even at random. Because there are rules for tripping, disarming and bull rushing people, does that mean they get used more than once in a blue moon?

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.

Arthur _as a character_ is whoever he is, and whatever he does. Arthur's _place in the Arthurian cycle_ is defined not just by his character, but by his position as king of the Britons, and a key part of that, in symbolic terms, is his wielding of Excalibur. You cannot separate the two, in terms of the part they play. Yes, he'd still be Arthur if he lost it, but the fact is that he _doesn't_ lose it, at least not until the end. As said, this is a defining aspect of fantasy and mythology.

Similarly, Elric may have been a hero doomed by his desires, but his relationship with Stormbringer -- the power it gives him, the price he pays -- is a defining aspect of the series. If he didn't have that sword, the books would be a lot less interesting.

Have a look at SKR's recent pdf, Swords into Plowshares. That product lists 70-odd weapons, ranging from simple +1 swords to items of singular power, all with detailed backstories. Why would anyone put that much effort into detailing what, in the end, are really just sharp sticks? Because they're _more_ than just sharp sticks. Magic items in fantasy have a significance of their own, and most players recognise that.

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

A character in D&D (regardless of class) should be more than just who they are, and what they do. The DMG itself talks about this: as you gain levels, you carve out a place for yourself in the world. You're no longer just a grunt adventurer, going into dungeons and looting the treasure; you become a power to be reckoned with, and your story is what drives the campaign onward. One of the ingredients of that story -- what separates you from everyone else -- is your command over the forces of the supernatural world, given definite form in the items and weapons that you wield.

Or something.

Gee, that sounded good, if I do say so myself.

 

[bmcdaniel]

[W]hen destroying an item, you use the character's base save, right? So, they would use the fighter's base fort save. Now, this is the BASE save. Not upped via magical items, or con. So, really, if it doesn't use the con bonus/magic bonus, it's easier to destroy.

Is this right? can anyone provide a pointer in the rules?

BM

 

[hong]

Is this right? can anyone provide a pointer in the rules?

Xarlen is incorrect. From the PHB, p.150, Saving Throws: "(Object): The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, etc) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object gets the creature's saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater."

No mention of base saves at all. I'm unaware of any instance in the rules where a distinction is made between the base save bonus and the overall save, unless it's for feat/class prerequisites.

 

[mmadsen]

Re: Re: its good to be king

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.

Magic and magic items can be very, very powerful without being common enough to become mundane. If legendary heroes wield +5 longswords, they'll naturally become attached to them, but there's nothing mundane about those legendary blades.

On the other hand, if everyone has a +1, +2, or +3 longsword, a +1 shield, +1 full plate, a ring of protection, a cleric cohort with a wand of cure light wounds, etc. then it all does become mundane.

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: its good to be king

On the other hand, if everyone has a +1, +2, or +3 longsword, a +1 shield, +1 full plate, a ring of protection, a cleric cohort with a wand of cure light wounds, etc. then it all does become mundane.

Yes, but mmadsen, you've never played 3E, so I don't know how seriously to take you.