Blowing up magic items, yes or no?

[Humanophile]

Hong, one of the big differences between story characters and D&D characters is the sheer amount of loot they carry around. If a character is quite attached to even a plain masterwork sword, I won't break it except in an epic battle, even if it would be the smartest thing for the bandits attacking the characters to do. However, when the player wants plot immunity for his super sword, plus his boots of flying, ring of resistance, belt of strength, goggles of darkvision, and hewards handy haversack full of +1 scavenged weapons, you go from dramatic to whiny and silly. And besides, in most fantasy settings, magic is rare enough that the signature weapons are pretty much immune to sundering, by D&D rules already in place.

So while I would like to see some means of creating a signature item that you can upgrade without needing a spellcaster and that becomes more or less part of your character, only breaking when he does, it shouldn't be a blanket benefit of being a PC. When you have enough magic, it does feel just like kewl stuff, and most of it is fully within the DM's right to bust up to make you hate the sunderer that much more.

 

[pseudo_hero]

amen brother....amen

 

[Frosty]

Another aspect that makes magic items so valuable to a player is that they are so hard to replace. You can learn how to make items yourself and you can recharge wands but it's very expensive and taxing. However, wounds and even life is pretty cheap. The first level cleric knows how to heal a commoner from almost dead to full health in six seconds flat. On the other hand very few can fix a broken magical sword.

If it was easy to fix broken stuff (such as with the mend spell) people wouldn't mind having their fine gear get busted every so often. It's the helplessness that creates the frustration.

Perhaps anyone should be able to make and repair magic items. Say you need a few things to make them but it is the items that are hard to acquire. A +1 longsword could be made from a masterworked longsword sprinkled with skeleton dust. In order to make one you just have to destroy a skeleton (undead obviously). [Idea stolen from popular CRPG]. To make a vorpal sword you might need a scale from an ancient silver dragon.

 

[Tsyr]

Hong, one of the big differences between story characters and D&D characters is the sheer amount of loot they carry around. If a character is quite attached to even a plain masterwork sword, I won't break it except in an epic battle, even if it would be the smartest thing for the bandits attacking the characters to do. However, when the player wants plot immunity for his super sword, plus his boots of flying, ring of resistance, belt of strength, goggles of darkvision, and hewards handy haversack full of +1 scavenged weapons, you go from dramatic to whiny and silly. And besides, in most fantasy settings, magic is rare enough that the signature weapons are pretty much immune to sundering, by D&D rules already in place.

So while I would like to see some means of creating a signature item that you can upgrade without needing a spellcaster and that becomes more or less part of your character, only breaking when he does, it shouldn't be a blanket benefit of being a PC. When you have enough magic, it does feel just like kewl stuff, and most of it is fully within the DM's right to bust up to make you hate the sunderer that much more.

So, human, what your saying is that, if a player willingly gave up having loads of magic items... just his sword, and say maybe a ring or a shield or something, you wouldn't destroy his weapon? But in the same game, is a player DID hoard magic items, you would?

 

[Tom Cashel]

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 use those rules all the time. Have you ever looked at how well a dragon can trip or disarm your average (or even above-average) PC? Dragons love to knock people down and take their stuff. Trip gets used every time the PCs fight wolves--not exactly an uncommon creature. And if an NPC baddie is going to spend a Feat on Sunder, you can bet he'll use 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.

Then Arthur must have made rolled higher on the opposed attack roll for Sunder. I'm not claiming that heroes of folklore and mythology have nothing to do with D&D heroes--obviously, that folklore and fiction is what spawned the very idea of the valiant fantastic warrior. But D&D is also a strategy game of rules and numbers. I'd rather challenge my players than coddle them. If the villain can hurt the PC by hurting his "stuff," then by Eris he'll bloody well do it.

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.

I haven't looked at it, but I agree with the concept. I make my players name their (magic) weapons, and give them a good description of the item. I try to impress upon them that the item of magic is unique, and has a history of its own. BUT, those same weapons could end up lost or destroyed (because it's a game of strategy and numbers also)--the uniqueness and fragility of magic items do not have to be mutually exclusive concepts.

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.

Yes, it sounds good, but what does that really mean? Of course you become a power to be reckoned with as you gain levels, and of course you pick up precious items of magic along the way, and become known for them. Tales are told of Billy Badass and his Blade of Doom. But "stuff happens" in D&D, and you can either use those occasions as an opportunity to role-play your brave warrior's rage and regret at losing a precious heirloom and trusted weapon...or the valiant "power to be reckoned with" can break down and throw a tantrum.

It seems like, at base, you're talking about role-playing. So am I. But you seem to be saying that players who role-play their "command over the forces of the supernatural world" exceptionally well and show the proper reverence for their magic items should be treated with kid gloves...immune to mean tricks like trip, bull rush, disarm, and sunder. I think you can have both reverence and breakage.

Those mean tricks come out of the Player's Handbook, after all...players are free to use them whenever they want.

 

[Hakkenshi]

I think people are using Arthur badly in their examples...I mean, Excalibur DOES break. And is fixed. So, umm...what exactly is your point, then?

Even if Excalibur HADN'T broken, it would just mean that no one else had a sword with a high enough bonus to shatter it.

The discussion's wandered far afield here. The point is that while Sundering and Disintegrating weapons shouldn't be commonplace, it IS a valid tactic, and clearly supported by the rules. Magic should NOT be mundane (IMHO) and I don't give away magic items lightly. When I do, they tend to be original items that have unique qualities, so I don't normally destroy them in-game, possibly because I took the time to create them on paper.

What actually matters here is that to a 1st or 2nd-level character, the longsword he's spent most of his cash on (whether masterwork or not) is just as important to him then as the unique weapon he acquires at higher levels.

Even then (to use a modern video game example), are people more impressed by Sephiroth because he has the Masamune, or because he's Sephiroth? Replace the names with pretty much every example, and it still fits. The character himself is feared, not so much his weapon. It's part of his story, yes, but it isn't HIM.

 

[Tsyr]

It seems like, at base, you're talking about role-playing. So am I. But you seem to be saying that players who role-play their "command over the forces of the supernatural world" exceptionally well and show the proper reverence for their magic items should be treated with kid gloves...immune to mean tricks like trip, bull rush, disarm, and sunder. I think you can have both reverence and breakage.

I'm not hong, but I agree with his arguements thus far, and would like to comment here...

I'm not sure I totaly agree.

Player gets a sword.

Player spends a year real-time with said sword... upgrading it as needed, etc... becomes attached to the sword. The blade becomes an extension of his will. Player is in the roleplaying "groove".

DM destroyes players sword.

I don't know about your players, but for mine, it would be a LONG time before they were willing to actualy care about a weapon after that happened.

Or worse yet, imagine if you were using the Oriental Adventures "Ancestral Daisho" ability, even in a non-oriental game for a knight or something... and you sundered that. That would be, bluntly, not good.

I think that there is a difference, too, between players - and, by extension, how the DM must deal with magic item destruction. My players used to see magic items as tissue paper... its destroyed? So what. Get a new one. It was starting to burn them out. And, to be blunt, _I_ didn't like this attitude towards magic items either. So I introduced a low-magic world. Players really are bonding to their equipment now... but if I showed that I was still willing to destroy this equipment, they would wonder what the point was.

Part of it is that I'm not a competative DM, I suppose. I don't see myself as being out to "defeat" the players... if they die, they die, sure, but my GOAL is not to kill them unless they can thwart me. My goal is to ensure they have a good time. As such, I will do what I must to see that they DO have a good time. And if the entails not breaking something they treasure? So be it. If the means NOT taking ever given opertunity to hurt the PCs? Well shucks, I guess I'll let them have some fun rather than trash them.

 

[Tsyr]

I think people are using Arthur badly in their examples...I mean, Excalibur DOES break. And is fixed. So, umm...what exactly is your point, then?

The point -albiet, a roundabout one- I think is that:

A) You can't fix disintigration... nothing left too fix

B) There aren't any official rules (to my knowledge) involving FIXING a weapon anyways. If there were, I would use said tactic more. And no, paying for a new weapon identical to the old one is _NOT_ fixing it.

 

[Dragonblade]

The question is distilled down into fun vs. verisimilitude.

Is it more important to destroy the player's magic sword because thats what the wizard would "realistically" do?

Or not to destroy it because you know your player would get upset?

I as DM feel that my player's enjoyment of the game is MORE important than destroying his weapon for the sake of "realism".

After all, since this IS a game, the player's (and DM's) enjoyment should always be priority one.

 

[Hakkenshi]

Yes and no. Where's the fun if there's no risk? If the fighter is secure in knowing that his sword will never be destroyed, he begins to take it for granted, and that's when it becomes mundane. In my games, there's no such thing as an unnamed +5 weapon. Or +4, or +3. They all have long histories too. But then again, there is a risk of loss too.

And Tsyr, I'm sure it wouldn't be hard for you to come up with a complicated ritual to fix weapons involving dangerous quests and such

You could even rule that a Disintegrated weapon had a "soul" which escaped, and could be rebound within a weapon's form. That's a cool quest in itself!