6
\$\begingroup\$

I heard someone say that weapons of legacy was very bad, to they extent that they say to avoid the book completely. My question is, Why? What's so wrong with it that it deserves that?

I want to know because I could easily DM rule 0 (since I'm going to be the DM and a player in my first game) if it's simple enough

While you are free to give any answer to the question you want, here's some simple rules I could change if it would mean anything based on what I've gotten so far.

  • reduce ritual costs. (but by how much?)
  • Reduce/remove the Stat penalties gotten from using the weapon. (Would this reverse them and make them overpowered though?)
  • Make them better (not really a recommended course but I'm putting it here for consistency)
\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ What specific problem, which you have experienced, do you want us to solve here? \$\endgroup\$
    – Brian Ballsun-Stanton
    Commented Mar 18, 2015 at 23:36
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Yes, I'm sorry, but "someone says option X is bad for no really defined reasons" is not a solid premise for a question. "Because they need a nap" is a pretty good answer to that question. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Commented Mar 18, 2015 at 23:50

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
14
\$\begingroup\$

Problems in the execution

Simply stated, the legacy weapons are no better than non-legacy weapons, but y ou take massive penalties in order to use them. This is just poor design of the particular weapons, however; not necessarily a problem with the system.

Problems in the system

So what happens if we imagine a Weapons of Legacy where the legacy weapons are actually good?

Since the penalties to use them are massive, the weapons must be really good. Like, massively good. Plus, since you keep the penalties even if you lose the weapon, the weapon has to be even better to cover for the risk of losing the weapon, and keeping the penalties. So the weapon cannot just be good enough to cover for the penalties, it has to be dramatically better than that or you wouldn’t take the risk.

Unfortunately, this puts DMs in a lose-lose situation. They are presented with the following choice:

  • The player never loses the weapon; hurrah, now he’s got an overpowered weapon, justified by a “risk” that never actually happens

  • The player does lose the weapon; hurrah, now you have a permanently-gimped character and a player who may now be struggling to actually contribute and, ya know, play.

Both answers are pretty awful for most groups. A few groups might be able to take the loss of the weapon in stride, but even then, it makes creating scenarios that reasonably include everyone (including the crippled character) much more difficult. So the DM really doesn’t want to take the weapon away, but then the weapon becomes overpowered and everyone needs to have one just to remain on the same playing field.

This is actually seen in the Item Familiar option offered in an issue of Dragon magazine; the Item Familiar is really good. Many DMs ban it because they do not want that lose-lose situation.

\$\endgroup\$
6
  • \$\begingroup\$ You mean this Item Familiar? Anyway, I always thought one of the major sticking points was needing to go on, essentially, solo adventures to activate the next ability of the weapon. (You've hit everything I would've except that, so my answer'd be brief. Could you address that, too?) \$\endgroup\$
    – Hey I Can Chan
    Commented Mar 18, 2015 at 22:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ @HeyICanChan sure when I get home \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Commented Mar 18, 2015 at 22:16
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ The batman way (taking the hidden third option) is to use the weapons as plot items. The brave Paladin lost his sword of awesomeness and now he can't help fight the evil mega boss, but without the paladin, all hope is lost -- fetch that sword so the paladin can get back to his basic self (and don't use it yourself, even if it is the only hope you have fighting the megadragon of doom)... or: The evil boss is overpowered because of his "can of kickass" -- to defeat him, you should first get rid of the can (or it's going to get tough and you'll die.. a lot). \$\endgroup\$
    – Clearer
    Commented Mar 18, 2015 at 23:33
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Clearer Sure, but you don’t need Weapons of Legacy for that. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Commented Mar 19, 2015 at 0:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan That's absolutely true. It's just the only use I can see for them. \$\endgroup\$
    – Clearer
    Commented Mar 21, 2015 at 2:29
0
\$\begingroup\$

The problem with the system is that generally the costs to use the weapons far outweigh the benefit you get from them. The best approach to fix them is probably to significantly reduce the costs and penalties that come with the weapons. Then they should actually be quite fine.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ No rudeness, but what feat cost are you talking about? The feats are bonus feats. I understand reducing the price of the rituals, but by how much? \$\endgroup\$
    – Cataru Moore
    Commented Mar 18, 2015 at 22:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ Been a good couple of years, so I might have remembered it somewhat faulty. \$\endgroup\$
    – Yora
    Commented Mar 18, 2015 at 22:36

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .