Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hakkenshi" data-source="post: 312297" data-attributes="member: 5457">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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />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.</blockquote>

Verification