Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 3085617" data-attributes="member: 5122">I think the idea of Weapons of Legacy is very cool.  It's not that DMs have been incapable for decades of creating powerful weapons, but it's nice that the designers recognized that it's fun to have a weapon grow with a character.  It's also good that they recognized that truly powerful items do need to be balanced out somehow.I'm one of those people who has felt for years and years that D&D is too much about what a character owns, and not what the character himself can do.  Even so, I disagree that Weapons of Legacy exemplifies that negative aspect of the system.  First, Weapons of Legacy is all about finding a reason not to have "disposable" items, but rather to forge a link with a once-or-future heirloom item.  Second, the powerful weapons tend to replace multiple other items the character in question might otherwise own and use.All that said, I was also taken aback by the penalties associated with the weapons.  I found myself thinking, "Wait ... I have to take a -3 to attacks in order to unlock the +4 of the weapon?"  I don't particularly like that aspect of the system, perhaps especially because they didn't really offer any game-world explanations for why legacy weapons would behave that way.On the other hand, I find myself puzzled by the implicit idea behind some of the posts above that legacy weapons should have been offered "as is" without something balancing their drastically lowered cost.  I've given it quite a bit of thought, and I'm not sure how to implement such balance, other than the way the designers did it.</blockquote>

Verification