D&D 5E Lesser Vorpal Sword

[Seramus]

Does one character - or more - have to put off training into a new level so another can retain the very expensive vorpal sword we just found? Or be denied the funds to go out and buy something else that's come available in town?

That's the very definition of "Need Before Greed!" You defer your own reward right now so someone else can have something nice, with the expectation that something nice for you will eventually come down the pipeline, until everyone in the party has a couple of nice things. Mild imbalances are ignored because the net benefit of having the item is usually higher, and if gross imbalances occur over a long period of time then you talk about balancing things.

Granted, I think every group can play however the majority feels about it. If selling big ticket items is the expectation, and everyone joined the party with that understanding, then no harm is done.

 

[Clint_L]

The decapitation aspect doesn't come up much and isn't really controlled by the player, so I wouldn't put a lot of value on it. It's cool when it happens but not really a major increase in power.

+3 at level 4 is a bit much,, but scaling that part of it is simple to execute.

The + 3 is waaaaay more powerful than the gimmicky decapitation bonus feature. At level 4 a +3 weapon is probably a 50% damage increase against tough opponents.

 

[Lanefan]

That's the very definition of "Need Before Greed!" You defer your own reward right now so someone else can have something nice, with the expectation that something nice for you will eventually come down the pipeline, until everyone in the party has a couple of nice things. Mild imbalances are ignored because the net benefit of having the item is usually higher, and if gross imbalances occur over a long period of time then you talk about balancing things.

When (not if) gross imbalances occur it's already way too late to talk about balancing things. The only way to prevent them is to - within bounds of practicality - not let them happen in the first place.

Also, even if a given player doesn't always play greedy characters, at some point that player might play one; and a greedy character with any intelligence at all could (and IME has) take a system like this and go nuts with it.

Granted, I think every group can play however the majority feels about it. If selling big ticket items is the expectation, and everyone joined the party with that understanding, then no harm is done.

Some times if an item is really useful to everyone is too big for one character to afford (e.g. a ring of regeneration or a rod of resurrection), a group of characters will buy shares in it just to keep it in the party. Or, if it's ironclad guaranteed that the same party is going to stick together for some time to come (rare, IME) then it'll just get carried forward to the next treasury as a party item.

A low-level party's treasury might look like (using our in-house item pricing and some conveniently rounded numbers):

Longsword +2 Lesser Vorpal - 23000 gp
Ring of Protection +1 - 3000 gp
Plate Mail +1 - 2000 gp
Scroll with some MU spells - 2500 gp
Horn of Fog - 3000 gp
Potion of Diminution - 500 gp
Potion of Levitation - 300 gp
Potion of Healing - 200 g.p.
various non-magical items (gems, jewelry, etc.) - 3000 gp
coins after expenses - 2500 gp

The sword is 23000 gp and the rest adds to 17000; total value 40000. Party has 5 characters, thus each one in theory gets an 8000 share. Each character needs to have about 3000 available for training. Keeping the sword means they have to sell off nearly everything else in order to afford to train, and means one character becomes much more powerful/useful than the others for the next adventure. If they sell the sword they can all train while keeping the rest of the good stuff in the party and sharing it around.

If they ignore magic item values completely they only have a treasury of 5500 gp, which won't get two of them trained never mind all five.

And if magic items are claimed and divided by a draft or choice procedure, there's nothing stopping the first chooser from taking the vorpal sword as theirs (whether the character can actuall use it or not) and then selling it. I've seen this done and believe me, in-character it ended very badly.

 

[Seramus]

When (not if) gross imbalances occur it's already way too late to talk about balancing things. The only way to prevent them is to - within bounds of practicality - not let them happen in the first place.

Also, even if a given player doesn't always play greedy characters, at some point that player might play one; and a greedy character with any intelligence at all could (and IME has) take a system like this and go nuts with it.

I suppose it comes down to how respectful and trustworthy your players are. I don't want to sing platitudes about how important it is to have a group of good people, because some of us play in Adventure League, pick-up groups at our FLGS, or are part of clubs where 'strangers' are playing with us for the first time. I can see how a "Sell It" mentality could be useful when gaming with strangers and/or people you might never see again.

 

[Lanefan]

I suppose it comes down to how respectful and trustworthy your players are. I don't want to sing platitudes about how important it is to have a group of good people, because some of us play in Adventure League, pick-up groups at our FLGS, or are part of clubs where 'strangers' are playing with us for the first time. I can see how a "Sell It" mentality could be useful when gaming with strangers and/or people you might never see again.

Another variable to consider - more applicable to my games than is the norm, I think - is that party membership isn't always the same from one adventure to the next. Characters cycle in and out, or hive off and form different parties, or whatever; meaning that oftentimes the treasury for a given adventure really does need to be locked down and shared out evenly right now during the post-adventure downtime, before the characters (or some of them) go their separate ways.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

This thread is beginning to hallucinate.

 

[Umbran]

"What makes it a lesser Vorpal Sword?"

"Well for starter, it only goes SNICKER with no snacks."

"Damn, I was quite hungry too."

But... SNICKERs really satisfy...

 

[Umbran]

Depends on how you interpret it.

In our games we always gave the item to the one who can use it best for the group. Insisting on selling it so you get some share is egoistical...

Not so much egotistical as just selfish.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Not so much egotistical as just selfish.

Ok. I don't see a big difference between those two.

 

[Umbran]

Ok. I don't see a big difference between those two.

The difference is connotational. Being selfish only requires one to not prioritize the needs of others. Being egotistical has an element of conceit, narcissism, and self loving.

A selfish person will take the last slice of cake because they want it. An egotistical person will take the last slice of cake because they deserve it, and will tell you that as they take it.