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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KesselZero" data-source="post: 5859232" data-attributes="member: 6689976">And another is that Unferth intentionally gave Beowulf a crappy sword to try to get him killed... <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":]" title="Devious    :]" data-shortname=":]" /> I do think it's more likely that he picked up a better sword than he'd originally brought down with him, but ultimately that's about the poem and not D&D.   I actually totally agree with this, which is why I'm so torn on the +n issue. I love +n weapons, and think they're a big part of the game, but I do really object to weapon dependency for all the reasons you put so nicely. In addition, if we're talking literature, you could make the argument that D&D wasn't originally intended to model "Beowulf," but rather the swords and sorcery genre. Conan never had a magic sword that he depended on, and Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser's weapons (Greywand and... Needle? Cat's Claw? I'm going from memory here but he used a rapier and dirk called something like that) are specifically said by Leiber to just be the names the heroes give to whatever weapon they happen to be using (though those two do always use the same type of weapon). Ultimately I do think it would create a more dynamic and exciting game if weapons could be dropped and lost more easily, and fighters wouldn't be totally hosed if they lost their sword and had to pick up an axe from a dead orc. That's pretty badass. Whatever the mechanic, I completely agree that +n weapons shouldn't be factored into the math. They should give an advantage, an edge, beyond the normal progression of attack vs. defense. The problem, then, is how to have a +5 weapon that doesn't totally break that math...</blockquote>

Verification