Weapons of Legacy opinions?

[MerricB]

I like the idea of WoL, but not the specific items in the book.

The two specific items in the book I like are the legacy holy avenger and the legacy staff of power.

The rest just give inspiration, and I ignore their abilities.

Cheers!

 

[Felon]

Sure, it has a penalty of -1 to hit, -1 to saves and about 8 hit points, but those factors are completely overwhelmed by what it does!

Right, and what could be wrong with a character having their own innate abilities "overwhelmed" by their magic items? That's old-school D&D right there, folks.

Weapons of Legacy is sort of the Anti-Iron Heroes sourcebook--to re-paraphrase, "It's the sword, not the arm that wields it". It literally disempowers the actual character so that they can wield some awesome piece of gear.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

3 of the 5 characters in my Shackled City game had Weapons of Legacy I designed for them using the rules as written. They winced a little at the costs, but thought the bonuses were too cool to pass up. The flavor of them alone nearly helped turn one character's personality. It worked great.

-DM Jeff

The costs of using a legacy weapon are definitely drawbacks...which makes using such a powerful item a balanced choice for a character. The thing is, these are all essentially minor artifacts that turn into major artifacts over time. If there were no drawbacks to using them, they'd be broken. The gold outlay is a fraction of what you'd pay to ge the same benefits added to your weapon by an item crafter, and so you pay the difference in drawbacks.

When the item reduces your attack bonus by -1 when it's already a +2 weapon, you're still making a net gain. When it gives you spell-like abilities, saving throw bonuses, or other benefits in exchance for some hit points and skill points, you're still ahead of the game, but you're at least something like balanced for your level.

I'm always stunned when I hear people say "I couldn't make up a plausible explanation for my players for why the mechanics work this way." What? It requires gold to purchase the special yrthak oil that you need to annoint the weapon and to hire the troupe of fifty monks to chant for sixteen days. It reduces your hit points because the weapon is fueled on the vital energies of the weilder. It reduces your attack bonus because when you swing the weapon, you can feel the very weight of ages weighing down your arms, and only a mighty hero can overcome that load to wield the thing properly. See? It's easy.

 

[Felon]

The costs of using a legacy weapon are definitely drawbacks...which makes using such a powerful item a balanced choice for a character. The thing is, these are all essentially minor artifacts that turn into major artifacts over time. If there were no drawbacks to using them, they'd be broken.

Note that the legacy weapons offer very few truly powerful abilities. They are in fact very "fluffy" abilities to a large extent.

When the item reduces your attack bonus by -1 when it's already a +2 weapon, you're still making a net gain.

Of course, the very design of the legacy weapons' progressive improvement is that you don't get the +2 until you've reached a level where +2 weapons are the relative standard.

When it gives you spell-like abilities, saving throw bonuses, or other benefits in exchance for some hit points and skill points, you're still ahead of the game, but you're at least something like balanced for your level.

Right, you're weaker, dumber, eassier to kill, but ahead of the game hehe.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Weapons of Legacy is sort of the Anti-Iron Heroes sourcebook--to re-paraphrase, "It's the sword, not the arm that wields it". It literally disempowers the actual character so that they can wield some awesome piece of gear.

Frankly, this doesn't exactly lack precedence in fantasy fiction.

 

[Aaron L]

I could live with it, were it not for tha fact that way to many weapons ended up giving you negatives you hit and damage.

Hit point expenditure as a sacrifice of life force? Neat.

Magic weapons making you fight worse? Stupid.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I could live with it, were it not for tha fact that way to many weapons ended up giving you negatives you hit and damage.

Hit point expenditure as a sacrifice of life force? Neat.

Magic weapons making you fight worse? Stupid.

I take it you weren't around for 1st and 2nd edition's weapons that had different to-hit and damage bonuses? You could have a +1/+3 sword that was +1 to hit and +3 damage. Weapons of Legacy seem like a return to that mechanic using the new system. It's a +3 sword, and it has all the properties of a +3 sword, except that it functionally only has +1 to hit due to the penalties.

These weapons also seem to be built around the standard fantasy theme that objects which are immersed in a powerful destiny are dangerous to use, but the rewards of doing so can be great. I don't have any problem with that angle. In fact, I've always kind of liked it.

 

[interwyrm]

Right, and what could be wrong with a character having their own innate abilities "overwhelmed" by their magic items? That's old-school D&D right there, folks.

Weapons of Legacy is sort of the Anti-Iron Heroes sourcebook--to re-paraphrase, "It's the sword, not the arm that wields it". It literally disempowers the actual character so that they can wield some awesome piece of gear.

Agreed. The problem with ultra-cool items is that they take away from the abilities of the character.

It seems to be less of a problem to me if the character founds the legacy item themselves.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Agreed. The problem with ultra-cool items is that they take away from the abilities of the character.

True. But again, this is not without precedent. The best example is one I mentioned above - the One Ring of Lord of the Rings. Frodo ended up diminished and weakened after the Ring was destroyed, which is strongly echoed in the Weapons of Ledgacy rules.

On another tack, I don't think this is a bad thing; it makes the characters really think about whether the power they'd gain by using a legacy item is worth the sacrifice. Legacy items aren't far removed from artifacts, and artifacts usually have some pretty stiff penalties for use, commensurate with the power they grant.

It seems to be less of a problem to me if the character founds the legacy item themselves.

Which makes even more sense when one considers the source material. Again, the Lord of the Rings is one good example. Sauron poured a lot of himself into the making of the Ring, which made him almost unbeatable, and was diminished to the point of virtual non-existence when it was destroyed.

Personally, I wouldn't use legacy items that often in the game. I'd mix them in with the scion items in Unearthed Arcana, the Green Ronin items much like legacy weapons, and regular ol' magic items from the DMG. Oh, with artifacts and epic items sprinkled in for leavening.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Magic weapons making you fight worse? Stupid.

We changed it to where the attack penalty applied to any weapon OTHER than the legacy weapon. IMO, most of the penalties are kind of randomly thrown together... I recall one that had a save penalty cost and eventually gave a save bonus.

Morover, the designers seem to regard wierd things as benefits. Take UR. It gains sentience as a "bonus". Thats not a useful ability, its just an irritation for both players and DM's to have some stupid deer spirit in a weapon yelling at you to hide all the time. I changed it to actually give bonuses when the 3 spirits awaken, and it seems a better balanced item.