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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 312440" data-attributes="member: 537">Fair enough. Although at the same time, I don't think the degree of attachment is going to be the same for _all_ the items that a character might have. For instance, if I was playing a fighter, I might consider my sword and shield, and maybe my armour, to be part of "me". No way is anyone going to get my sword without prying my cold, dead fingers off of it. However, my +5 ring of protection, +6 belt of Str, or +5 cloak of resistance aren't so central to my image of my character. They're useful, but in the end, they really are just tools. If the ring goes kaboom, or the cloak, that's unfortunate, but I won't get all knotted up because of it.This will vary depending on what character I'm playing, naturally. If I was a sorc, I might be more attached to that +6 cloak of Cha than to my +1 dagger. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I'll go out on a limb here, and extrapolate _my_ feelings to what many players feel. I don't have any solid evidence for this, but from what I've seen, it's a reasonable assumption. At least for reasonable players, anyway.I'm not sure what you mean?Coincidentally, I have some rules for imbuing items that I've cooked up from various sources:<a href="http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/imbued_magic.htm" target="_blank">http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/imbued_magic.htm</a>I'm not saying that _every_ magic item should have special significance. If that were the case, it would become meaningless. However, I do think that sundering isn't something that should happen without good reason; and "to keep players on their toes" doesn't strike me as a very good reason.</blockquote>

Verification