I'm not in a particular rush.

We can just say it got upgraded and fudge richard away from combat for a little while.

edit:
Though we have had several perfectly workable votes already -_-
 
There's a MiC update. It triggers only on a crit.

CURSESPEWING Price: +3 bonus Property: Weapon Caster Level: 11th Aura: Moderate; (DC 20) necromancy Activation: —

A barely perceptible dark glow surrounds this weapon. Whenever this weapon scores a critical hit against a target, it bestows a curse that imposes a –4 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks for 1 minute. Multiple strikes aren't cumulative with one another
Eww, no way then. A +3 ability than only triggers on a Crit and still allow a save like that. Richard isn't built as a Crit machine. I'll pass.
 
Can we all take a deep breath for a moment?

I think... What exactly are we trying to make this sword do/be exactly?
The most important thing about a sword is that it lasts. None of this "spell slots" or "charges" bullshit. When you hit something, it takes damage. A lot of damage. Richard can get into slapfights with Golems and other HP-bags, and not run out of spells.
It's literally the only advantage martials have, so let's not lose it.

Now my favorite thing would be "you heal as you inflict damage, always on" but Magebane and other Bane stacking are sadly fluffier.

EDIT : Wait, no. the most important thing about a sword is that it kills things very, very dead. Preferably in a way that stacks with Power Attack. Lasting all day is also very important, but less than this.
 
Last edited:
Oh man this discussion really puts my arguments about loots with my players in a new perspective.
Now if only I could get the lvl 14 Fighter to stop complaining about being weaker than the level 14 Wizard, Druid and Cleric ...

I'm honestly not that invested in min-maxing our gear, but I understand it's a lot of fun for some people. Just remember: A DMs job is to design challenging adventures. The more OP our stuff, the more OP they'll be forced to make our opponents. We most likely won't be wiped just because our Sworn Shield's Sword (what a phrase) wasn't quite as good as it maybe could've been.
On the other hand, I also understand that people aren't happy with turning what should've been a big upgrade into a nerf in disguise. Maybe we could agree on some relatively minor buffs in exchange for keeping all the prior strengths? In conclusion, I will vote for whatever keeps the fluff intact and everybody as happy as possible.
 
I don't see the issue? We've been discussing several possibilities, and have completely removed Miser's Bane.

What else is the problem?
The proposed upgrades to it's other abilities.

Spell stealing would become vastly more powerful, so much in fact that that ability alone is worthy of a Minor Artifact.
And the other one is a sneaky way to add another +3 enchantment to the weapon.

And on top you want another few enchantments.
 
Oh man this discussion really puts my arguments about loots with my players in a new perspective.
Now if only I could get the lvl 14 Fighter to stop complaining about being weaker than the level 14 Wizard, Druid and Cleric ...

I'm honestly not that invested in min-maxing our gear, but I understand it's a lot of fun for some people. Just remember: A DMs job is to design challenging adventures. The more OP our stuff, the more OP they'll be forced to make our opponents. We most likely won't be wiped just because our Sworn Shield's Sword (what a phrase) wasn't quite as good as it maybe could've been.
On the other hand, I also understand that people aren't happy with turning what should've been a big upgrade into a nerf in disguise. Maybe we could agree on some relatively minor buffs in exchange for keeping all the prior strengths? In conclusion, I will vote for whatever keeps the fluff intact and everybody as happy as possible.
I mean, to be fair, I think people are thinking of this upgrade as meaning the weapon is (mostly) complete, with little to no further tinkering needed. They also want for this weapon to stay relevant, which is hard when Sir Richard is going to eventually get into the Epic levels.

It's less that people want sweet loot to stomp on their enemies (because most current enemies can already be relatively easily stomped on) but to instead ensure that this weapon with a lot of personal history and lore isn't going to be discarded because it can't keep up with some random weapon found in a dungeon somewhere later.

Have no dog in the minmax discussion (because I don't really understand most of it), but I can see where the discussion is coming from.
 
Now if only I could get the lvl 14 Fighter to stop complaining about being weaker than the level 14 Wizard, Druid and Cleric ...
A straight fighter in a party with a Wizard, Druid and Cleric?

Jesus.

Also, the issue is us being reasonably able to justify using an item we love and personally invested in. The way it is, Oathkeeper is way, way underleveled. It's a +3 flaming sword. Ser Richard is level 16.

It had one ok and one good ability: the empowered False Life and the Miser's Bane.

Miser's Bane is no more, and ~20 HP won't be quite cutting, especially when you have to kill something first.

But looking above, literally everything else is also an issue now.

So, we are just trying to find a good set of enchantments for it.
Still not a fan, not as a +3 ability. Would prefer to keep what we had already agreed on.
We apparetly get Searing Flame as +0. Also, we get a +1 enhancement for free from the VS. So a +5 enhancement only costs +3, leaving us with 6 points to play with.


If the special abilities are going to stay irrelevant, then might as well make it +5 Searing Flame Wrathful Healing Wounding Fortuitous (or Mage Bane).
 
@DragonParadox, just veto the shit out of this discussion now, please.

I agree with Azel above that we should stop and come back to it with fresh eyes later.

@Goldfish @TotallyNotEvil I want to make it very clear that I'm not saying this because I am in any way upset about your arguments per say. I'm just concerned about where the discussion might lead overnight.

I hope you guys will forgive the slight pause until the morning for the sake of my nerves.
 
I agree with Azel above that we should stop and come back to it with fresh eyes later.

@Goldfish @TotallyNotEvil I want to make it very clear that I'm not saying this because I am in any way upset about your arguments per say. I'm just concerned about where the discussion might lead overnight.

I hope you guys will forgive the slight pause until the morning for the sake of my nerves.
I still maintain that the two of us should design the upgrade, otherwise we just kick this argument down the curb. Let's just carry on with more productive matters tomorrow.
 
Yes, this helps a lot.
/s

Can you point out any problems in the current discussion? Why it should be vetoed?

Because people naturally discuss when they don't quite agree. Nothing wrong with that.
I see salt.
With my magic time-bending update-summoning ways I foresee even more salt.

And I don't want the shit to spill while DP is asleep and can't moderate either party, seeing as that's the known recipie for a shitshow.

Excuse me for liking this thread without salt.
Now I sleep.
 
I still maintain that the two of us should design the upgrade, otherwise we just kick this argument down the curb. Let's just carry on with more productive matters tomorrow.

I'm fine with that as a base but I think there should still be in-thread discussion. Some of the best ideas of this story have come from that sort of discussion and I do not want to stifle that.
 
I think...

I think...

arguing over the inherently broken balance of DnD seems unlikely to be productive?

I mean...

I think it is inherently imbalanced? I'm not sure.
 
Back
Top