Stats for swords of power?

[ssuperboy95]

I really want to make a campaign based off of the 12 swords of power from The Book of Swords by Fred Saberhagen as artifacts that are fought over and a few held on both good and evil sides that the player's have to overcome, but i want them to actually be used sometime in combat so I need stats for them. Also, what type of person should be wielding each one and which one should the BBEG use? Thanks in advance for the help!

 

[Celebrim]

I feel like you are about 30 years to late to this discussion.

Back 'in the day' this was a very common fan boy concept. I'm sure at one time you would have gotten 30 different answers, except for the fact that at the time Saberhagan's work was really at the forefront of fantasy imagination there was no internet so you couldn't have asked the question.

It seems like Dragon may have at one time addressed this question in an article.

One problem with every answer that you are going to get is that the 'Swords' works aren't really very gameable. They have a lot of 'power of plot' issues and balance issues that don't lend themselves to gaming. So regardless of how people stat out the swords of power, it's wrong. You won't have verisimilitude with the texts based on really any sort of stats because Saberhagen wasn't coming at the work from a gaming perspective at all.

Now, the general idea of a game revolving around very powerful swords is fine. But you are going to have a very hard time with plot devices like Farslayer if you try to emulate the text. Otherwise, just pick whatever statistic you think are appropriate.

Coinspinner: Keen Sword +1, grants +5 luck bonus to hit and damage, +5 luck bonus to AC, and +5 luck bonus on Reflex saves, and a +5 luck bonus to all ability and skill checks.

Mindbender: Sword +1 of Wounding, acts as a Rod of Rulership with no time limit

Wayfinder: Sword +3, find the path when held.

Dragonslicer: Keen Sword +1 of Dragon's Bane (+5 vs. dragons, 2d6 bonus damage on hits)

Shieldbreaker: Sword +6, Defender.

Stonecutter: Keen sword +3, ignores DR and hardness of objects/creatures made of stone/metal and does double damage to such targets.

Ect. (It's been ages since I read the books.) A lot of the complexity is in defining the weaknesses of the sword since they all have a particular purpose and behavior.

 

[Larrin]

The swords were ultimately powerful. They didn't give bonuses, they just made things happen. Sheildbreaker didn't give a bonus to your AC, it made you untouchable by weapons, and automatically destroyed them, even if they were other swords of power. Coinspinner didn't give a bonus to luck, it gave you the best possible luck. As such, If you are trying to mimic their actual behavior, I don't think the sword's powers are something you can actually put a number on. Look up what they could do. They can do that, no rolls needed.

There were a few exceptions: MindBender could poison people it cut ( I think) which is translatable into an effect. you could make, etc. But in general, they were above the laws of any game of god or man. The swords didn't even really interact with each other on an even playing field, sheildbreak just ignored their powers and broke them without a second thought (except [woundbinder?]) because that is what it did.

If you want to give them stats, and add an element of fairness/chance to them existing in your game, I would say that they are all +6 (if not +7) weapons, and add that enhancement bonus to any applicable action/skill/defense, plus whatever powers they seem to have in the book, at will.

 

[Celebrim]

The swords were ultimately powerful. They didn't give bonuses, they just made things happen.

That's the power of plot problem that I mentioned. It's actually worse than that. They didn't always make things happen in a predictable manner. Their powers were highly conditional and often arbitrary. Fans are still arguing over whether the events that occurred are the ones that 'ought' to have occurred given the swords stated 'ultimate ability'. Certainly there was no way to predict which swords power would trump the other swords power until the writer said via the narrative, "This sword trumps that sword."

This is the problem with non-quantified abilities. In a game, things that grant 'immunity' or 'invincibility' are simply ungamable because you end up in arbitrary 'what happens when an immovable object meets an irresistible force' questions? Why does shield breaker give immunity to Mindbender or Soulcutter when they don't attack by force of arms? Just because. Why can Woundhealer counter Farslayer? Just because. It's not really interesting as a game.

Sheildbreaker didn't give a bonus to your AC, it made you untouchable by weapons, and automatically destroyed them, even if they were other swords of power.

Sure, but that's just simply not fun. It amounts to an entire game ran by DM fiat. In short, my point is that if you want to do this fine, but don't do them like they are in the story.

There were a few exceptions: MindBender could poison people it cut ( I think) which is translatable into an effect. you could make, etc.

Most of them have effects that could be described, but which generally have the caveat - "No saving throw or spell resistance is allowed against this effect." There is also a general problem that in the books, the swords were basically the only magical items. In a setting with many magical items, can the swords be countered at least partially by other items 'of power'? Since everything in the story runs on power of plot, there is no way to really answer that question except fiat.

 

[SkidAce]

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] is certainly correct about the difficulties of such "plot artifacts".

It can be mitigated to a certain extent however, much like any artifact's impact upon your game.

Two suggestions;

1. Make these swords the only artifact level items in the campaign.

2. Develop a DM cheat sheet / framework of how each sword affects the others. Presumably using some of the narrative from the books. This will allow you to arbitrate the interactions of the swords should they conflict with each other from a precedent, instead of making it up on the spot.

Granted number two will be guidelines, and the players will cause you to make judgement calls, but that will be less fiat, and more of a ruling.

And once the players learn the interactions, they can start leveraging the swords' strengths and weaknesses, as they should.

 

[Celebrim]

2. Develop a DM cheat sheet / framework of how each sword affects the others. Presumably using some of the narrative from the books. This will allow you to arbitrate the interactions of the swords should they conflict with each other from a precedent, instead of making it up on the spot.

That works fine if you are Fred Saberhagan writing a novel. But it makes for a very dull and boring game.

At the start of the books, the reader doesn't know how it will end and he can't foresee which swords arbitrary power will trump the other ones in an absolute way. Will Shieldbreaker defeat Coinspinner or will Coinspinner's power of luck be so great that Shieldbreaker's wielder always suffers some unforeseeable misfortune (stumbling on a pebble and stabbing himself through the heart)? Will Shieldbreaker offer no defense against attacks that do not rely on force of arms or is it true invulnerability? Ok, so maybe Shieldbreaker offers defense against all attack originating with weapons, but if a wizard casts 'Dominate Person' does that work or not?

If your intention is to just replay out the events of the narrative, then by all means leave every fiat decision up to the narrative. If your intention is to play a game that doesn't have a fixed outcome and where the player's actions are meaningful, you have to get rid of the railroad implied by the books incarnated power of plot.

Otherwise, the game devolves down to:

a) Do we have Shieldbreaker?
b) If no, have the Monk get Shieldbreaker.
c) Win.

 

[SkidAce]

That works fine if you are Fred Saberhagan writing a novel. But it makes for a very dull and boring game.

At the start of the books, the reader doesn't know how it will end and he can't foresee which swords arbitrary power will trump the other ones in an absolute way. Will Shieldbreaker defeat Coinspinner or will Coinspinner's power of luck be so great that Shieldbreaker's wielder always suffers some unforeseeable misfortune (stumbling on a pebble and stabbing himself through the heart)? Will Shieldbreaker offer no defense against attacks that do not rely on force of arms or is it true invulnerability? Ok, so maybe Shieldbreaker offers defense against all attack originating with weapons, but if a wizard casts 'Dominate Person' does that work or not?

If your intention is to just replay out the events of the narrative, then by all means leave every fiat decision up to the narrative. If your intention is to play a game that doesn't have a fixed outcome and where the player's actions are meaningful, you have to get rid of the railroad implied by the books incarnated power of plot.

Otherwise, the game devolves down to:

a) Do we have Shieldbreaker?
b) If no, have the Monk get Shieldbreaker.
c) Win.

I disagree. It appears you think I am implying a railroad or something.

The interactions between the swords will be a framework. The players will adventure and discover these attribute via play. They could develop an entirely different narrative. Heck they could decide to destroy them all.

I never said anything about following the books detail for detail, I was offering the OP advice on how to incorporate plot artifacts into a game. Based on the swords.

No worries.

 

[SkidAce]

At the start of the books, the reader doesn't know how it will end and he can't foresee which swords arbitrary power will trump the other ones in an absolute way.

Neither will the players. Ahhh, the mystery...


Meant to include this, sorry.

/off topic

Anyone read "Empire of the East"?

 

[Celebrim]

I disagree. It appears you think I am implying a railroad or something.

Incarnated power of plot devices don't merely imply a railroad, they are a railroad.

If you have a device out there with an absolute power which has no saving throw, then its entirely a matter of DM choice what the players (must) do. This is especially true of items where the absolute power no saving throw includes things like mind control.

This is a game world where a PC's can simply be scrubbed out because suddenly Farslayer appears in ones chest. Items like Farslayer always favor the NPCs for the simple matter that they deprotagonize everyone. This is a game where if the DM decides some NPC has Mindbender or Soulcutter, it's an automatic TPK. What prevents these occurrences? Not even logic; only the DM's predetermined plot and events.

One of the main themes of the books is that in the game, no one - not even the gods - is actually in control. Events and destiny just sweep everyone along with no real power over their fortunes. Everyone makes choices because they don't have a choice. They have only one path available to them. The sword becomes the only choice, and once the sword is drawn its making the choices for you.

Heck they could decide to destroy them all.

And this would differ from the narrative of the books because...?

No, the more likely scenario IMO is that unlike the books, all the swords don't end up destroyed. The PC's differ from the text in that basically they will play well together (unless the DM chooses to force them to kill each other, they'll game the situation). Basically, the DM must either choose to kill the party in the manner of his design, or else choose to let the party collect swords until they become invincible. The only mystery here is how poor the DM is at predicting the outcome of his own actions.

UPDATE: I think I can explain this position more succinctly.

In every setting there are potential foes of high challenge rating. The DM could in fact challenge the PC's at 1st level with elder dragons, fiend lords, and storm giants taking a very personal interest in their affairs. In such a situation, the PC's would be completely subject to the whims of the NPC's - and thus perforce completely subject to the whims of the DM. Thus, in general, DMs refrain from having high challenge NPC's taking personal interest in the PC's (at least in a hostile way) before the PC's are sufficiently high level to thwart the will of the NPC.

But what is the CR of an NPC like Farslayer, Mindbender, Soulcutter, or something else of the sort that is invincible with no save, and no spell resistance, and trumps even immunity no matter who you are - even a CR 60 god? The CR of such an item is infinite. It has the power of plot. It's appearance determines the outcome. As soon as it shows up, the PC's are completely subject to the whims of the item and its wielder and thus perforce completely subject to the whims of the DM. Thus, in general, a DM should always refrain from having such objects part of his game.

 

[SkidAce]

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], good points that certainly need to be taken into consideration. I'm not positive its as polarizing as you put it, but I get what you are saying.

The conversation should definitely grant [MENTION=6747376]ssuperboy95[/MENTION] some insight into the concerns and methods of implementing his idea.