Tell me about weapons of legacy

[pawsplay]

WoL was intended to supplant the "golf bag of weapons," but it actually makes it worse. Since your main weapon is now a +5 silver longsword, or maybe just a +5 longsword, that gives you +8 to Perform (spoons) and resistance to fire 10, you absolutely must have cold iron, silver, and adamantine weapons, plus oils of magic weapon, bless weapon, etc. Oh, yeah, and while you're using that cold iron morningstar you have oiled to be a +3 holy weapon, you're still carrying around "character costs." If there is one weapon destined to be sold at a yard sale, it's the legacy weapon. Epic legacy costs are punitive, so you can be sure that even if a character carries one until he's 20th level, it's going bye-bye not long after. Legacy weapons are especially bad for two weapon fighters, who take penalties to BAB for their attacks but only get bonuses on their primary weapon. And if the PCs decide to give two of their WoL to one character? Nerf city, here I come.

There are some substantial rules problems. For instance, the book makes use of Knowledge (history). Wrong, that is. Knowledge checks don't allow retries, and the DCs are prohibitively high. Knowledge skills in D&D are not for research, they are for knowing and recognizing things, which means unlocking legacy abilities is not a painstaking task, but a spin on the roulette wheel.

Some of the items are dumb. Bullybasher's Gauntlets?

The huge GP costs associated with unlocking strain belieavability. I'm spending 5000 gp to go burn incense on a mountaintop? What, does the incense have Pelor's cord blood in it or something?

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I'd really like to see the opinion of an open-minded person who sat down at 5th level, got or put together a Legacy item, and played through five or six levels of actual weekly gameplay with it. And hated it, and was willing to talk about his time at the table playing with the item and why he disliked it.

That would be interesting.

--fje

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'd say its more than fair, since you deal 2 points more with the bow, but lose 2 points from everything else. IMO, untyped attack penalties are MUCH worse than a specific weapon enhancement bonus, since they apply to grapple checks and a ton of other stuff.

The improved invisibility, being a similar power, would actually receive a discount, rather than a cost increase.

And the cost of the item shouldnt be multiplied by 2. Its an added property of the weapon (hence 1.5). Or do you multiple all weapon properties by 2, since they dont take up a slot?

You'll notice I multiply each ability's cost by 1.5, and then the total by 2. Weapon properties are already priced in the DMG, and so do not need to be assigned multipliers (we assume those are included in the pricing). Any abilities given to a weapon beyond those which are normally allowed to be placed on a weapon should be priced based on the table "Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values", where guidelines for pricing these abilities are located. If you provide a sword with an enhancement bonus to Dex, you pay 1.5x the cost for the additional property, and 2x the cost for allowing an enhancement bonus to Dex that does not take up a slot. If you cause the sword to take up a slot when wielded, it would reduce the modifier to 1.5. If the sword takes up your glove/gauntlet slot, it would eliminate the modifier completely.

However, unlike the 1.5 multiplier for additional abilities, the modifier for a slotless item is applied to the entire cost of the item, which is why it's not usually a good idea to make a sword of invisibility. The sword's cost as a magic weapon is doubled along with the cost of the invisibility power. Better to have a magic sword and a separate, slotless invisibility item, so that only the item's costs are doubled.

Regardless, it still sucks if you have someone who can craft items.

Even if you have someone who can craft items, can you cough up the 250,000 required to build this thing? Don't you suppose that someone might rather take the listed penalties, pay 50,000, and spend the 200,000 remaining on other stuff?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'd really like to see the opinion of an open-minded person who sat down at 5th level, got or put together a Legacy item, and played through five or six levels of actual weekly gameplay with it. And hated it, and was willing to talk about his time at the table playing with the item and why he disliked it.

That would be interesting.

--fje

I agree. The opinions on WoL have so far been either:

1. "Oh my god, I would never, ever do that!"
or
2. "I did it, it was fine. I had fun. I didn't notice the penalties, because I also had bonuses."

I think the comparison to PrCs is quite apt. You trade off advancement along a certain line in order to get some payback along another line.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

The huge GP costs associated with unlocking strain belieavability. I'm spending 5000 gp to go burn incense on a mountaintop? What, does the incense have Pelor's cord blood in it or something?

No, it's to pay for 500 dancing girls, the base minimum amount required to slightly amuse the powers that be.

Actually, for one of my characters, his WoL is an item sacred to the cult of Vecna. The costs associated with the first ritual will be caused by the need to find and burn a number of extremely rare texts after committing them to memory, to increase the number of secrets known only to the faithful. Not that he's one of the faithful, but he's motivated to unlock the power of the item enough to carry out the ritual.

 

[Crothian]

I'd really like to see the opinion of an open-minded person who sat down at 5th level, got or put together a Legacy item, and played through five or six levels of actual weekly gameplay with it. And hated it, and was willing to talk about his time at the table playing with the item and why he disliked it.

So, the people who posted so far are close minded?

We used it, we didn't like it. It was way to mechancial, not that much better then other magical items without negatives like spent money and time for rituals and the mechanical modifiers.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

So, the people who posted so far are close minded?
.

Well, no, I meant more along the lines of open-minded other than the experiences of somebody who said: "Man, this system sucks. I'm going to make a character with an item so I can show everybody just how much it sucks."

That's sort of like: "I wouldn't like sushi, it has RAW FISH ... there, I ate a piece and I hated it, proving that raw fish is icky."



Thanks for the comment on your experiences, though.

--fje

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

You'll notice I multiply each ability's cost by 1.5, and then the total by 2.

Which is incorrect. It should be 1.5.

Weapon properties are already priced in the DMG, and so do not need to be assigned multipliers (we assume those are included in the pricing). Any abilities given to a weapon beyond those which are normally allowed to be placed on a weapon should be priced based on the table "Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values", where guidelines for pricing these abilities are located. If you provide a sword with an enhancement bonus to Dex, you pay 1.5x the cost for the additional property, and 2x the cost for allowing an enhancement bonus to Dex that does not take up a slot.

Its not a slotless item, its an additional property of a wielded weapon. Check out the costs of intelligent weapon powers, which are priced far better, and are free actions the item takes. They arent paying a slotless premium. Why wouldnt you count each additional property of any item as such then? You dont. A staff of fire isnt priced as though its multiple separate slotless items (that for some stupid reason also pays an extra amount for being in the same item).

If you cause the sword to take up a slot when wielded, it would reduce the modifier to 1.5. If the sword takes up your glove/gauntlet slot, it would eliminate the modifier completely.

However, unlike the 1.5 multiplier for additional abilities, the modifier for a slotless item is applied to the entire cost of the item, which is why it's not usually a good idea to make a sword of invisibility. The sword's cost as a magic weapon is doubled along with the cost of the invisibility power. Better to have a magic sword and a separate, slotless invisibility item, so that only the item's costs are doubled.

Hence why the cost multiplier doesnt stack unless you feel like being obtuse to support a crappy rule system. A +x sword that grants a +6 to dex shouldnt cost more than a +x sword and a slotless item that gives a +6 to dex.

Even if you have someone who can craft items, can you cough up the 250,000 required to build this thing? Don't you suppose that someone might rather take the listed penalties, pay 50,000, and spend the 200,000 remaining on other stuff?

Except your pricing scheme is flat out wrong as I've stated.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I'd really like to see the opinion of an open-minded person who sat down at 5th level, got or put together a Legacy item, and played through five or six levels of actual weekly gameplay with it. And hated it, and was willing to talk about his time at the table playing with the item and why he disliked it.

That would be interesting.

--fje

Yeah, I'll just sit right down, force one of my players to gimp themselves with a sub par item for a year to let us know what math has already shown - the benefits are marginal and the costs are huge.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Yeah, I'll just sit right down, force one of my players to gimp themselves with a sub par item for a year to let us know what math has already shown - the benefits are marginal and the costs are huge.

Nice to see people keeping an open mind, eh? Well-predicted, Heap.