Tell me about weapons of legacy

[pawsplay]

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've already posted my opinion, which was neither. I was all, "Hey, this looks cool... oops, no, it sucks, dang it."

 

[Crothian]

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

Not everything needs to be played in a game to know if it is weak or strong. THe only way you can claim people are not having an open mind is if they have judged the book before they read it. Reading the book and forming an opinion based on that is not being close minded.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Not everything needs to be played in a game to know if it is weak or strong. THe only way you can claim people are not having an open mind is if they have judged the book before they read it. Reading the book and forming an opinion based on that is not being close minded.

Well, my statement was specifically meant to apply to people who, having made a judgement based on their perception of the book, then performing some "experiment" with the express intent to prove that perception true. I.E. - closed-minded.

I think people are perfectly welcome to pick up the book, look at the contents, and decide that the system presented there-in is not for them.

It is, however, MY opinion that people reading this thread who are unsure about the book shouldn't take the opinions of those who disliked the book's content so much as not to actually use it in their games (or use it as presented) to be factual representations of the quality or utility of the system itself. (EDIT: By this I do not mean that their opinion it is poor is not a factual/actual opinion. But that their decision that the system was poor was to say that, in an actual, factual, borne-by-all-testing sense the system is poor and that using it will invariably result in less-capable less-powerful and less-enjoyable characters.)

Additionally, I hold up my own experience to say that, for at least some people, the system as presented in actual play is quite enjoyable AND that initial psychological reactions to the system may not bear themselves out for all individuals in actual gameplay.

I, myself, was leary of the book until it was used by another GM in another game I was a player in. I, myself, chose to pass on taking a Legacy item at that time. The guys that DID take them seemed to have quite a bit of fun with them, so I decided to give it a try the next time I had opportunity to do so. I have been quite pleased. So I do invite people to say: "Maybe it isn't as bad as it seems." and see how they like it in an actual game. I did, I haven't been disappointed.

--fje

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Which is incorrect. It should be 1.5.

You're going to have to tell me why I should follow one entry on the table and ignore another entry on the same table. Otherwise, you're not making any sense.

Its not a slotless item, its an additional property of a wielded weapon.

A weapon is a slotless item. Perhaps rather than assume that properties added to weapons don't pay for being slotless items, we should assume that they do, and that these extra costs are already figured into the magic weapon pricing scheme.

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).

Well, taking a single power as an example (Daylight 3/day) and pricing it without the slot premium or the "secondary power" premium, we find that it would cost about 18000 based on the recommendations. The increase in base cost for an intelligent item is +16000, and the minimum price for this item is about 27000 (assuming a +1 weapon), which includes three other minor powers, as well as the item's own ability to sense its environment using darkvision, all of which may or may not be worth the extra 11000. Without getting into the Ego issue, the base costs aren't that far apart, so long as you don't apply the costs for secondary powers and slotless abilities.

Now, what you seem to be suggesting is that we scrap these costs, and allow people to add powers usually reserved for wondrous items, rings, wands, etc. to weapons without having to pay any additional cost to do so. This would, of course, make all item creation feats vastly inferior to Craft Magic Arms and Armour, since why make a ring of protection +1 when you can make a sword of protection +1 for the same price as the sword and the ring, and still have that ring slot free?

Now, I don't know if this is just me, but it seems like a bad idea. Especially because if you keep adding powers to an already-crafted magic sword, it just turns into a shopping list of powers that don't really have anything to do with one another. A fighter could have a +3 sword that gives him +4 to Str, +4 to Dex, +4 to Con, throws fireballs 3/day, acts as a ring of sustenance, a ring of water breathing, and a hat of disguise, because there's no reason not to: it costs the same as the individual items. Of course, normally he'd have to use up slots to get those powers, and in doing so limit the number of powers he can have running simultaneously. Also, normally a fighter can't use the sorts of items that allow you to throw fireballs (generally spell trigger or spell completion). Items that violate that boundary are usually quite expensive. This fighter could slap on a magic belt, an amulet, a couple of rings, a magic helmet, and some magic gauntlets, using the money he saved by not having to pay for the price modifiers on his sword's abilities, and putting these items in the slots he didn't use by putting all his favourite buffs into his weapon.

Now, I'll also take the chance here to point out that nowhere outside of the rules for intelligent items is there any indication that you can place any ability on a weapon that is not contained in the "Melee Weapon Special Abilities" table, or tables in supplements derived from this table. Which means that without it being a WoL, you can't actually build the bow described in MerricB's post. Incidentally, if it were written up as a standard item, it would qualify as a major artifact, and be uncraftable for that reason as well.

Now, I suspect that most of the abilities available for intelligent items were placed there with the intention that they be not too powerful, and mostly for flavour. The lesser abilities are fairly pedestrian, and the greater abilities, of which you may have a maximum of 3 (which costs 15,000 just to qualify for, before ability costs are added), are useful, but not too useful. They are also drawn from a very brief list. The dedicated powers are only useful when the item (read: DM) decides they are, and you have to trade in your greater powers to get them, so they aren't really worth mentioning.

It seems to me that this combination is why intelligent items aren't given the costs normally associated with extra powers on an item. They're just not that great to have, and come with some drawbacks. Item ego might also play a factor, since an item with 3 greater powers has a minimum ego of 21, which is the Will DC that you must make to change its mind about something it wants you to do. If you're a fighter, that might become a problem if the item doesn't exactly share your goals.

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.

Obtuse? I'm just reading these values off the table, and as I pointed out above, even that's being generous since weapons aren't normally capable of granting +6 to Dex.

And besides all that, even if I don't apply the cost doubling for a slotless item, the thing still costs 254,000 gp when the powers you overlooked are taken into account. With Craft Magic Arms and Everything Else, you can make it for the low, low price of 127,000 gp, which is still 73,300 more than the WoL will cost you. That's more than the value of the entire equipment load for an 11th level character.

 

[MerricB]

Hey, just reverse-engineering your design here, and I had a couple of questions: how do you get the +4 to Dex at level 13? It's a menu E ability, which means it should take a slot from 12th level plus the 13th level slot. The 12th level slot is used to take a menu A ability, rather than a menu D ability, but I don't see any indication that you can take menu A abilities "for free" using higher-level ability slots. Also, how did you apply at-will invisibility at the same level as the +6 enhancement bonus?

I'm actually thinking of giving a slightly redesigned bow of this sort to a character in my own AoW game, so I'd like to make sure I understand how it was built.

edit: for that matter, where did you get at-will invisibility? I figure grave strike was an ad-hoc addition, but it's harder to determine for stuff like this, since I'm not yet that familiar with the book.

I tend to modify the rules a bit based on my own observations. When you upgrade weapon bonuses, it's all additive. However, when one ability replaces another, then there's no compensation; the weapon loses power. (Consider that if you didn't take the B +2 and E +4, you could still take the G +6 stat bonus at 17th level).

So, when the E +4 ability replaces the B +2, I add a new "B" ability to replace it, and it's nice when you have "something every level", so it goes into the blank slot that the E requires.

Ditto when G replaces E - I put an E ability at the same level. (I'd also do this for skill bonuses).

So, the E ability is Invisibility at will; the B ability is traded down for A because it makes sense for the character of the bow. (In theory, I should get an additional A ability when Invisibility at will replaces Invisibility 1/day, but the level was getting rather crowded).

Grave Strike (at will) was compared with similar level spells & abilities and slots... and then I decided that having a continuous Grave Strike was too much! I'll probably change it again so it affects the first attack of each round and that's it.

Cheers!

 

[pawsplay]

(EDIT: By this I do not mean that their opinion it is poor is not a factual/actual opinion. But that their decision that the system was poor was to say that, in an actual, factual, borne-by-all-testing sense the system is poor and that using it will invariably result in less-capable less-powerful and less-enjoyable characters.)--fje

See, I decided this book was not for me when I realized the authors did not understand how Knowledge checks worked and did not realize that unlocking weapons of legacy would turn into a snipe hunt.

 

[Nightfall]

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

I guess that makes two of us Crothy.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

You're going to have to tell me why I should follow one entry on the table and ignore another entry on the same table. Otherwise, you're not making any sense.

Because one trumps another. Why not throw the "unconventional slot" penalty on while you're at it? You seem to be stretching to make WoL useful. I'm taking an interpretation of the rules that makes the most sense.

A weapon is a slotless item. Perhaps rather than assume that properties added to weapons don't pay for being slotless items, we should assume that they do, and that these extra costs are already figured into the magic weapon pricing scheme.

Even if you assume its slotless, you shouldnt add in the 1.5 penalty for an additional property on an item. Putting multiple properties on the same slotless item is a penalty if anything, you dont pay extra on top of that. If I have an ioun stone that grants +2 to strength and intelligence, it shouldnt cost more than 2 ioun stones granting +2 to intelligence and strength respectively. By virtue of being multiple items, the ioun stones are better, since you can split them among party members if needed, and if they become damaged, they are cheaper to repair. Thats why you dont apply the 1.5 penalty on slotless items.

Well, taking a single power as an example (Daylight 3/day) and pricing it without the slot premium or the "secondary power" premium, we find that it would cost about 18000 based on the recommendations. The increase in base cost for an intelligent item is +16000, and the minimum price for this item is about 27000 (assuming a +1 weapon), which includes three other minor powers, as well as the item's own ability to sense its environment using darkvision, all of which may or may not be worth the extra 11000. Without getting into the Ego issue, the base costs aren't that far apart, so long as you don't apply the costs for secondary powers and slotless abilities.

An item that can cast bless 3/day would cost 11250 (its suggested that daily limit items be priced as a wand). Multiply that times 1.5 and you get 16,875, approximately the cost it adds to the weapon. Hence my point. You obviously dont apply the double penalty for being slotless. The intelligence is extra since it lets the item activate powers on its own, and typically raises the DC's of some spells/effects.

Now, what you seem to be suggesting is that we scrap these costs, and allow people to add powers usually reserved for wondrous items, rings, wands, etc. to weapons without having to pay any additional cost to do so.

The 1.5 times cost IS the extra amount.

This would, of course, make all item creation feats vastly inferior to Craft Magic Arms and Armour, since why make a ring of protection +1 when you can make a sword of protection +1 for the same price as the sword and the ring, and still have that ring slot free?

Because the sword +1 of protection +1 (2000 + 1.5 of 2000) has a base price of 5000, while the ring and sword have a base price of 4000? A sword +1 and a slotless item of protection +1 runs 6000. Under your pricing scheme, you'd have someone pay 10,000 for a sword of protection +1 (additional property of 1.5, all multiplied by 2). Does that make sense? Is it fair? Obviously not. The +1 sword of protection +1 is pretty clearly worse than the +1 sword and slotless item +1, as you can split them up if needed, dont need the weapon in hand to gain its benefits, and repairs are cheaper (sunder anyone?). Thats why you get a discount for it, compared to slotless items, only paying 1.5 instead of double, and certainly not your 1.5 AND double.

And besides all that, even if I don't apply the cost doubling for a slotless item, the thing still costs 254,000 gp when the powers you overlooked are taken into account. With Craft Magic Arms and Everything Else, you can make it for the low, low price of 127,000 gp, which is still 73,300 more than the WoL will cost you. That's more than the value of the entire equipment load for an 11th level character.

Well, the 11th level character wouldnt get full benefits from the WoL item either, so I'm not sure what your point there is. Moreover, the greater invisibility gets a 50% discount, as its similar to an existing power. I wouldnt count creature compass as a +1 either, more like a flat gold increase (2000 - 4000 or so). We obviously arent going to reach a consensus on the exact price, but I think I've made my point more or less clear.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Well, my statement was specifically meant to apply to people who, having made a judgement based on their perception of the book, then performing some "experiment" with the express intent to prove that perception true. I.E. - closed-minded.

So if I note that the warrior class has less HP and feats than the fighter class, I'm performing some kind of biased experiment "out to get the warrior", and not just making an observation of the facts? Moreover, I'd need to actually force a player to run a warrior to get a feel for their balance, or I'm close-minded? Sorry, I disagree.

WoL items do take away a lot. The difference between them, and a crafted item isnt as much as you'd think. Someone has taken craft arms and armor in every game I've run, thus the presented system is doubly bad for our group. Your evidence as to the system's balance seems to be "I like my item". Thats fine and all, but its more subjective than what I've provided as to why I think the system is not finely tuned as written.

Additionally, I hold up my own experience to say that, for at least some people, the system as presented in actual play is quite enjoyable AND that initial psychological reactions to the system may not bear themselves out for all individuals in actual gameplay.

I, myself, was leary of the book until it was used by another GM in another game I was a player in. I, myself, chose to pass on taking a Legacy item at that time. The guys that DID take them seemed to have quite a bit of fun with them, so I decided to give it a try the next time I had opportunity to do so. I have been quite pleased. So I do invite people to say: "Maybe it isn't as bad as it seems." and see how they like it in an actual game. I did, I haven't been disappointed.

--fje

My experience was the opposite. I initially thought it looked ok, then did the math to see how much the characters were being ripped off.

While I dont think the system is flawed, I DO think there is some good to be gained from this book. The stories of the items are decent enough for a plug and play, and the concept is good. One of my players is using a modified Ur for her main weapon, and is enjoying it. I just had to adjust the penalties to be more fair.

 

[Thanatos]

If you read through a book, weigh it for your use and decide that, for whatever reason, its not for you -- thats not being closed minded. How's that go, people in glass houses...

I sat down with my players and we did put together multiple legacy items and "applied" them to existing characters to see what the effects were like. Like many other people who wanted to like and use the book, we didn't agree with the mechanics and penalties.

We didn't exclaim loudly to the gods either.

The assumption that the only thing people are having issues with in regards to this whole book is some intitial psychological shock is bupkis. Making disingenuous generalizations of people who had negative opinions of the book is sad though.

I don't know any DM's who read a book of huge magnitude and throw all the material in their game world. They either sit down and have an evaluation session or two or run a test series of modules. That doesn't make our experience with the matieral less factual or valid then you tossing it directly in your game world, so people shouldn't just take someone's opinion just because they put it in their game world.

I never said we found the system unplayable. Our experience with messing around with the mechanics was that we found them poorly implemented. We didn't find or like the penalty system, which seems arbitrary and not new or cool. We found it poorly balanced since it penalizes you in so many other areas and with so many other items and skills and some of those penalties are significant with some characters. It was the standard "give you something and take something else away" that D&D typically does when its pretending to give you some huge reward (because there MUST be concequences), which we find tedious and hope its something they eventually move away from. Balance wise though? these items are pretty well balanced in and of themselves.

Sorry, I didn't give you the whole range of what we did with it, I didn't think people would start making insults over it. But we weren't shocked, we weren't closed minded about the book, but we certainly were not going to potential screw up our game world by tossing stuff like that in it without looking it over first. I certainly didn't present any of my arguments as fact -- because they are just based on my (and the groups) opnion on what we saw after working with the material.

I am sure it works fine for some campaigns -- I even asked about the one it seemly worked in, I'm glad someone was able to make use of them. WoL are going to have much less impact on very optimized characters over ones that are not as optimized as well as work better for some campaign types then others - but yet another reason to put out so many products -- so different people in different groups can make use of them.

At the end of the session and our evaluation we found it a poorly implemented and tedious mechanic buried in an otherwise good idea. The book isn't layed out very well either. I wish we could have used the book as is, but everyone pretty much had the same opnion on it and we just took the weapon building portion of the items and applied different mechanics to make it work for our game.

If I had it to do over? I wouldn't have bought the book. The value we got from it wasn't worth the price. I'm glad people like the book and can use it with their groups -- its not a crappy product by any means.