Dagger of Defiance
- Thread starter Demon Knight
- Start date
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
There's also the Oathbow - the penalties for failing an oath operate when you're not wielding the bow.
-Hyp.
-Hyp.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Actually, all the cursed weapons in the DMG (-2 Cursed Sword, Cursed Backbiter Spear, Berserking Sword) only show their effects when employed in combat.
Possible exceptions: The alignment effect of the Mace of Blood applies "while in the character's possession", and the "You must draw me!" effect of the -2 Cursed Sword obviously applies even when it isn't drawn...
-Hyp.
Victim
First Post
Considering that the item description says it works when carried, and not only when held, it don't think it matters what the usual case is.
I mean magical items normally provide bonuses, right? So cursed weapons should have bonuses too, since the that's the way magic items work?
I mean magical items normally provide bonuses, right? So cursed weapons should have bonuses too, since the that's the way magic items work?
Demon Knight
First Post
I'm now more confused then ever. I like Hypersmurf's idea about the Luck Blade. Now that I look some things over, does the Assassin's dagger add the +1 DC to death attacks even if he's not wielding the dagger? So much confusion over such a simple thing, but it seems it's not so simple.
From a DM's stand, would you ever allow these weapons to function like this? Would you allow your players to carry around Daggers of Defiance in their belts, and make them completely immune to certain powerful magics? I must say, that for only 12302gp, I would not allow it. But as a player, I would jump all over the chance! So my two sides are in conflict, which is why my confusion has run wild...
If I had to decide for myself, I would go with the side of allowing the dagger to function even when not held in hand.
[joking]
I have an idea. Let's all go play something else, like the Lord of the Rings board game. My head hurts. No more D&D for tonight.
[/joking]
From a DM's stand, would you ever allow these weapons to function like this? Would you allow your players to carry around Daggers of Defiance in their belts, and make them completely immune to certain powerful magics? I must say, that for only 12302gp, I would not allow it. But as a player, I would jump all over the chance! So my two sides are in conflict, which is why my confusion has run wild...
If I had to decide for myself, I would go with the side of allowing the dagger to function even when not held in hand.
[joking]
I have an idea. Let's all go play something else, like the Lord of the Rings board game. My head hurts. No more D&D for tonight.
[/joking]
Wielding vs. Bearing
I would rule that the Dagger of Defiance would have to be held in order to provide immunity. If not, why wouldn't every character that could afford one get one? Just tuck it in your HHH and you're good to go, since you would possess it.
You keep nasty munchkins!
I would rule that the Dagger of Defiance would have to be held in order to provide immunity. If not, why wouldn't every character that could afford one get one? Just tuck it in your HHH and you're good to go, since you would possess it.
You keep nasty munchkins!
WattsHumphrey
First Post
I'd rule that the dagger works if it's on his person.
If someone thinks rules lawyering is the act of trying to get out of your stuff what you really thought it did, then this guy rules lawyered and I don't see the problem with that. I consider rules lawyering to be finding loopholes in the rules for the sake of exploiting them, and I'm all about thinking that's a bad idea, so I'd house rules it away. In this case, it sounds like he kept the dagger because this is what he thought it did, so I don't have a problem with it.
Faerun is a powerful, powerful place, so I don't see the problem with this specific item.
Finally, as far as the game is concerned, whatever the GM rules is law. If he rules in a way that you don't want to accept, then discuss it with him, but in the end it's his judgement call. If he rules in ways you don't like a lot, then quitting is better than dealing with it. But every player should keep in mind that in order to find a GM that'll give them their way every time they'll have a long search in front of them.
If someone thinks rules lawyering is the act of trying to get out of your stuff what you really thought it did, then this guy rules lawyered and I don't see the problem with that. I consider rules lawyering to be finding loopholes in the rules for the sake of exploiting them, and I'm all about thinking that's a bad idea, so I'd house rules it away. In this case, it sounds like he kept the dagger because this is what he thought it did, so I don't have a problem with it.
Faerun is a powerful, powerful place, so I don't see the problem with this specific item.
Finally, as far as the game is concerned, whatever the GM rules is law. If he rules in a way that you don't want to accept, then discuss it with him, but in the end it's his judgement call. If he rules in ways you don't like a lot, then quitting is better than dealing with it. But every player should keep in mind that in order to find a GM that'll give them their way every time they'll have a long search in front of them.
JacktheRabbit
Explorer
Sounds like a poorly written magic item.
Just to ask a simple question. Shouldnt we be able to break down the cost of the magic item and determine if the cost listed for the item is enough to have the item work merely by carrying as opposed to wielding it?
Pesonally even when wielded I would rule this magic item is way too powerful for its cost.
Just to ask a simple question. Shouldnt we be able to break down the cost of the magic item and determine if the cost listed for the item is enough to have the item work merely by carrying as opposed to wielding it?
Pesonally even when wielded I would rule this magic item is way too powerful for its cost.
Similar Threads
