Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3231642" data-attributes="member: 4937">I think that's fair, in the sense that D&D provides a detailed method of combat resolution but the rules for other types of conflict resolution (even just flight rather than fight) aren't nearly as detailed.  That said, I don't think alternative solutions are rare in D&D, and indeed much of this thread actually revolves around a discussion of whether DM's are justified in breaking the RAW in order to enforce alternative solutions to a problem that they present.I think that it is safe to say that Glamdring the Foehammer and Orcrist the Goblin Cleaver are not artifacts.  They are rather famous swords, and they are the sort of thing that you don't need much bardic lore to recognize, but they are 'merely' ordinary works of Noldor skill and not items of the same stature of the Valar and made with thier power (or equivalent).  And I think that that is entirely unfair.  D&D supports non-artifact level unique items quite well, the problem is that most DM's don't.  But there is no reason at all that a sword +3 shouldn't (or couldn't) have a name and a history, and every reason that it should.First, because it is famous.  Maybe, goblin matrons tell thier whelps to be good our the foe hammer will get them.  Or, depending on how you interpret the mythology, some of the goblins present may have actually seen the foe hammer back when it was wielded by the Noldor.   In any event, when Gandalf draws Glamdring in the midst of his pyrotechnic display, and Glamdring blazes with a blue flame in the midst of the goblins - they recognize the sword as the sign of doom that it is.  Secondly, because just because Glamdring isn't an artifact, doesn't mean that it is 'just' a sword +2.   Maybe it is a keen adamintium bastard sword +4 with the special quality of being able to detect goblin-kind within 300'.   That's a pretty significant sword even if it isn't an artifact.  Thirdly, because the 'DM' telling the story is good at his job, and he's more concerned with setting a scene than maxmizing the tactical advantage of the goblins.  The NPC's don't act like robotic killing machines.Beyond that, we (the players of the game) have gotten awfully casual about the barrier between DM and player knowledge, and between character knowledge and player knowledge - far too casual in my opinion - and as a consequence we are losing something important.   The character certainly doesn't know he has a +2 sword.   The player knows this, though even that is something that I don't think should be casually presented.   What the character knows, and maybe all that the player should know, is that he has a magic sword which is significantly more powerful than an average magic sword.  I don't see how?  It's up to the DM to provide player's with oppurtunity to get the resources that they need to survive the challenges he intends to present them with.  But that doesn't mean that he needs to provide the magical equivalent of Wal-Mart for one stop shopping for all your non-artifact level magical item needs.  For one thing, that really nerfs the item creation feats.  For another, it totally blows the atmosphere of the game.  And for another, it renders swords +2 'just swords +2'.   What is wrong with players getting thier swords +3 and mythril chain mail coats the old fashioned way - as part of the horde of treasure that the find after overcoming the challenge.And in this way, the Hobbit is a better D&D game than the one you are suggesting should be run.Just stop there.  There are no 'rules' for encounter design.  There is no rule that says you should present characters with four encounters of EL X, followed by an oppurtunity to rest and rince and repeat.  There are some guidelines and suggestions on encounter design in the 3rd edition text intended to help new inexperience DM's create challenges of the appropriate difficulty.  But there are no 'rules' for encounter design, except that people should have fun.  Whatever game you are playing?  It's not the game I've been playing the last 20 years.  Maybe its not 'D&D' by your (rather narrow and hidebound) definition, but I've enjoyed it and never realized I needed to call it something other than D&D.  In fact, listening to you I wonder whether D&D has gotten a bad name because people insist on living up to its negative sterotype.</blockquote>

Verification