Some Queries for our Backers

Question 3D) Sentient Swords
Proposed New Rule:
When a sentient sword is used to attack an opponent that fits its motivation, a special power is used against the opponent. These powers are determined by the alignment of the sword. A chaotic sword will energy drain an opponent of the appropriate type by one level per point of magical bonus. A lawful sword will strike an opponent of the appropriate type for one extra damage die per point of magical bonus. A neutral sword will grants the sword wielder a bonus to Armor Class and saving throws equals to its magical bonus when combating an appropriate opponent.
EXAMPLE: Blackguard is a chaotic +3 vorpal two-handed sword with a motivation to destroy lawful opponents. It energy drains 3 levels from any lawful opponent it strikes.
Question: Is an “energy drain” or “striking” bonus of 1 per +1 of the weapon too much? Should it just be one level of energy drain and double damage?

I don’t think it’s too much, given how rare and potentially wilful they are - esp. when you look at the swords in yr reading list like Erikson’s Dragnipur.

UPDATE: Mounted Combat
I believe this summarizes all of the extant rules on mounted combat.


MOUNTED COMBAT
While combatants will rarely be mounted in dungeons, they will often be mounted during wilderness encounters. The following rules summarize the mechanics of mounted combat.
MOUNTED INITIATIVE AND MOVEMENT
The rider and his mount move on the rider’s initiative number. When the initiative number comes up, they may move up to the mount’s combat movement distance. After movement, either the mount or the rider may attack an opponent in range. The mount may run at triple its normal combat movement rate, but neither the rider nor mount may then attack (except in a charge, described below).
After any attacks are resolved, the rider and mount may not move again until the next round. If they are engaged they must abide by the rules under Defensive Movement. Riders wishing to cast spells must keep their mount stationary. In lieu of moving or attacking, the rider may dismount.
MOUNTED ATTACKS
If the rider and mount remain stationary, both may attack. Otherwise either the mount or the rider may attack when their movement is completed. In order to attack while mounted, a rider must have the appropriate Riding proficiency for his mount.
Under some circumstances, a warhorse (or similar creature, e.g. dire wolf) and its rider may make an attack after a running move, called a charge. To qualify for a charge, the rider and mount must be unengaged and have a reasonably clear, straight path to an opponent at least 20’ away. The charge gives a +2 bonus on the attack throws, but the rider and mount take a -2 penalty to Armor Class until the next time their initiative number comes up. Charges with spears, lances, pole arms, and the natural attacks of certain monsters deal double damage on a successful charge.
EXAMPLE: Marcus is armed with a lance and mounted on a medium warhorse (60’ combat movement). His opponent, an ogre, is 90’ away across flat, even ground. Marcus and his warhorse make a running move to engage the ogre. This qualifies as a charge (because the ogre was more than 20’ away and they had a clear, straight path) so both Marcus and his mount get to attack. Marcus will attack with his lance and inflict double damage if he hits. His warhorse will strike with its two hooves. Both Marcus and his warhorse get +2 to their attack throws, but suffer a -2 penalty to AC this round.
When a rider conducts a force back or overrun special maneuver, the Judge should use the mount’s size to evaluate whether the opponent receives a saving throw penalty because of size difference.
MOUNTS AND DAMAGE
A character in combat without a military saddle must save v. Paralysis every time he or his mount is dealt damage or be knocked off the mount. If a mount is reduced to half its hit points, it must make a morale roll or flee the battle. A character with Riding proficiency may attempt to calm his fleeing mount. This allows the mount to make a new morale roll each round.
If either the character or mount is reduced to 0 hit points, the character falls off the mount and takes 1d6 damage. Characters falling off of aerial mounts take 1d6 per 10’ fallen.

SWIMMING AND DROWNING
Any combatant without a swimming movement rate (described in Chapter 8 under Monster Characteristics) must make a swimming throw each round he is in water too deep for him to stand. The target value for the swimming throw is equal to the combatant’s encumbrance in stone. If the water is cold, rough, or fast-moving, the Judge may impose a penalty on the swimming throw of -2, -4, or more.
A successful swimming throw allows the combatant to move and act during the round. Swimming movement may be based on either the combatant’s combat or running movement rate, in either case being ¼ the normal rate. A swimming combatant using combat movement may attack after his movement. A swimming combatant using running movement may not attack, and is subject to exhaustion as per running.
A failed swimming throw means the combatant begins drowning. A spellcaster that begins drowning loses any spell he was attempting to cast that round. Drowning combatants cannot take any actions and no longer make swimming throws. They sink 10’ per round per stone of encumbrance, and will die after 10 rounds unless rescued.

The target value for the swimming throw is equal to the combatant’s encumbrance in stone.
That’s wonderfully elegant and easy to remember.

Question #3B: Sword Powers, Part II
What do you think of this list of “Sword Motivation” Opponents:
James – It makes sense that if the swords are breathtakingly rare, that the enemy types being broad is a way of making the swords quite powerful. That said, the list strikes me as being something more appropriate to a ‘bane weapon’ than a sentient motivation and that being such it may be a tad simplistic and general. I’d be more intrigued by a motivation that is more to do with a goal, a quest the sword must accomplish, than by a ‘slay all creatures of type x’ thing. I’m more liable to apply a referees hand and give the sword a specific motivation pertinent to the campaign (though I may use this table for inspiration).
I think ‘Animals’ is potentially flawed. Would the wielder of the sword spend his days slaughtering horses, livestock and pets?
Question #3C: Sword Powers, Part III
The questions are
(a) Should the special powers be battle-ending (petrify and paralysis)?
(b) If not, would making the chaotic power be “energy drain” instead of petrify, to allow for “Stormbringer”-esque swords, be cool?
(c) What should the lawful power be if something other than paralysis?
(d) Is the neutral power as lame as it seems relative to the others?
James
a) I’d prefer not, though Mages get battle-ending powers anyway, so this degree of power isn’t as silly as it appears.
b) Energy Drain is a marmite power in my experience. Some people love it, some hate it. I think a Chaotic sword that sucks the lifeforce from those it hits and uses it for its own ends is cool though.
c) Geas, alignment change towards Lawful, or some similar ‘bring law to the world’ power. Make those hit by the sword fall to their knees and beg for forgiveness.
d) Yes. It’s not battle ending. The Neutral power could be immunity to ‘battle ending’ powers to provide a counterpoint to the Lawful and Chaotic swords, or it should have some battle-ending power of its own.
Question 3D) Sentient Swords - Question: Is an “energy drain” or “striking” bonus of 1 per +1 of the weapon too much? Should it just be one level of energy drain and double damage?
James – If these swords are as super ultra rare as they are supposed to be, then it’s probably not too much. They will have a huge impact on a game, but if you allow one into your game I think you have to accept that.
It’s also important to point out that there’s no way of determining how many +1s a sentient sword has, from what I can see in the rules atm. Looks like there’s a table and some text missing from the rules.
Question #8: Transmogrification - Should I include this proficiency?
James - Yes.
Question #6: Potion of Polymorph
James – Remove once per round. Make it in line with Polymorph Self, the spell.

I think ‘Animals’ is potentially flawed. Would the wielder of the sword spend his days slaughtering horses, livestock and pets?
APM: Um…ok, so its sort of lame.
James – If these swords are as super ultra rare as they are supposed to be, then it’s probably not too much. They will have a huge impact on a game, but if you allow one into your game I think you have to accept that.
It’s also important to point out that there’s no way of determining how many +1s a sentient sword has, from what I can see in the rules atm. Looks like there’s a table and some text missing from the rules.
APM: I think I might revert to the idea that any sword can be sentient, as they do in B/X.
Question #8: Transmogrification - Should I include this proficiency?
James - Yes.
APM: Done!
Question #6: Potion of Polymorph
James – Remove once per round. Make it in line with Polymorph Self, the spell.
APM: Done!

APM: Um…ok, so its sort of lame.
I know I shouldn’t, and I’m sorry, but that made me laugh. Imagine the look on Dragomar the Warlords face as he holds aloft ‘Thaldim, Sentient Sword of the Seven Terrors’ for the first time and realises that this most potent of blades is dedicated to the destruction of the household cat.
APM: I think I might revert to the idea that any sword can be sentient, as they do in B/X.
Can I ask, without seeming like a complete idiot - why is the pedigree of intelligent weapons limited to swords? I mean, why is always, and only, swords? Is it something to do with the most famous historical weapons being swords? Where did the concept of intelligence come from?

James: I think the legacy limitation to swords is at least partially an attempt to shore up fighters (and to a lesser extent thieves) at higher levels:

  • few classes could actually use swords
  • the magical treasure tables tilted strongly to swords
  • the most powerful weapons were all swords
    Given that sword use is more prevalent in ACKS, and Fighters are juiced up in other ways, it’s possible that restricting this phenomenon to swords is not necessary. I’m also sure I’m not the only one that ever introduced a non-sword with a will into their game :slight_smile:

So was it an artefact of the original game then, rather than something that came from a historical inspiration?
I’ve made no secret about my desire for intelligent ‘other weapons’, because I’ve always felt that the legacy was a bit strange, but I’ve never really thought about why and where it came from.
Your 3 points all make sense - though I’d say fewer classes could use Polearms! :slight_smile: Maybe swords was the only appropriate crossover between Thieves and Fighters…
It’s such a curious rule!

If sentient swords weren’t explicitly designed to get Stormbringer into the game, I’d be very surprised.
Aside from that, swords are appropriately mythic weapons. Good swords take a much higher degree of technology to create (in terms of metallurgy and smithing) compared to pretty much any other era-appropriate weapon. (Except maybe composite bows, but even then.) Techniques for creating the proper alloys, and which alloys to use where, were jealously guarded secrets. And, of course, many were named, which is almost the signpost for sentience. It kind of makes sense historically.
Besides, putting weapons with a dominating ego solely into the hands of the characters with the lowest intelligence and wisdom is comedy gold.

I have a neat idea on sentient swords versus other weapons. Stay tuned!

I like that sentience is restricted to swords. It is based on the historical and mythological background. We might come up with ubermagical hammers or axes, but swords deserve a special place because of Shakespeare, Lord of the Rings, Elric, Excalibur, etc. Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar fought with swords as their main weapon. I think pretty much every magical weapon in the Poetic Eddas was a sword. I think Robert Baratheon in Game of Thrones is the only example I can think of as notable wielder of a weapon besides a sword. Lets keep the super powerful weapons sword.
On the proposed powers: I think these are great, with the replacement of animals for something else. As the probability of finding them currently exists on the treasure tables, these are not that powerful. As long as I can easily find exactly the “plus bonus” chart when creating the sword, these are not that overpowered. But I would really prefer a “forced surrender” or disabling (oh no, maybe paralysis is a good idea!) power for lawful swords.

The mechanics below are closer to the original B/X & AD&D conception of sentient swords in that any sword has a chance to be sentient. I’ve modified it such that the chance is dependent on how powerful the sword is. I’ve also added a provision making miscellanous weapons half as likely as swords to be sentient, creating the possibility of sentient dwarven throwers, for instance


Particularly powerful magical weapons are sometimes thinking and intelligent entities, known as sentient weapons. These weapons have motivations of their own, and may or may not be hostile to their wielder. The Judge plays the personalities of these items in the same manner as an NPC.
A sword has a percentage chance to be sentient equal to its highest magical bonus x2. Other magic weapons have a percentage chance equal to their highest magical bonus. If the weapon is a life drinker, luck blade, vorpal blade, or dwarven thrower, the chance of intelligence is doubled.
EXAMPLE: The highest bonus of a sword +1, +2 versus spellcasters is 2, giving it a (2 x2%) 4% chance to be sentient. The highest bonus of a dwarven thrower is 3, giving it a (3 x 1% x 2) 6% chance to be sentient. The highest bonus of a vorpal sword +3 is 3, giving it a (3 x 2% x 2) 12% chance to be sentient.

Longshanks: The uber-weapon of Irish mythology is a barbed spear!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gáe_Bulg
And of course you’ve got Thor’s hammer, Odin’s spear… apparently the Slavic god of thunder used an axe! I see the Welsh version of King Arthur goes for the trifecta, toting around a magic dagger, magic sword, and magic spear…
What Shakespearean sword are you thinking of? I see that Prospero had one (Gandalf is not alone!).
Alex: That’s a nice compromise!

Yeah, I think it’s a moot argument now that such an elegant solution was found. :wink:

Nice, I like that… the sentient weapons become less “created by the Lords of Chaos” artifact, more “sometimes the spirits infuse the blade” tribal.

Alex Wrote:
Question #2: Wands of Detection and Swords of Detection
For legacy reasons relating to old versions of D&D, the range and duration of detection spells and detection items do not line up.
Specifically:
*Wand of detecting enemies lasts 1 round; “detect evil” spell lasts 6 turns
*Wand of detecting magic lasts 1 round and has 20’ range; "detect magic spell has 60’ range and lasts 2 turns
*Wand of detecting traps lasts 1 round and has 20’ range; “find traps” spell has 30’ range and lasts 3 turns
*Intelligent sword’s detection of good/evil lasts 1 round and has 20’ range; “detect evil” spell has 60’ range and lasts 6 turns
*Intelligent sword’s detection of traps lasts 1 round and has 10’ range; “find traps” spell has 30’ range and lasts 3 turns
Dan:
Yeah except no. Meaning that they are closer than they appear. When D&D was being writen in '72 - '73 the game was framed around CHAINMAIL combat and there was no such thing as a “round”. There were just game “turns” of about a minute each. In CHAINMAIL it is possible to have multiple “attacks” or “rounds” (throws of the dice) in each “Turn”. So at some point, fairly late in the development, Gygax formalized that as the 10 rounds (minutes) per turn.
Thing is the spells were already written in the old CM turn and never revised to the D&D round. Thing also is that both Gygax and Arneson paid very little attention to the Turns/round thing in those days and, (especially Dave)frequently said turn when they meant what we would call a round - old habits. Gygax even confused the thing more when he wrote Swords and Spells and changed the length of a round to 2 minutes.
Upshot is that if you turned (heh) turns to rounds for the cast spells it would actually be returning to original intent, and easier to harmonize with the magic items as you see fit.

Charlatan wrote: James: I think the legacy limitation to swords is at least partially an attempt to shore up fighters (and to a lesser extent thieves) at higher levels:

  • few classes could actually use swords
  • the magical treasure tables tilted strongly to swords
  • the most powerful weapons were all swords
    Given that sword use is more prevalent in ACKS, and Fighters are juiced up in other ways, it’s possible that restricting this phenomenon to swords is not necessary. I’m also sure I’m not the only one that ever introduced a non-sword with a will into their game :slight_smile:
    Dan:
    No it’s definetly a legacy thing and had nothing to do with notions of game balance. Magic swords were the first treasures in Blackmoor and one of the first things he created. He wrote this in FFC
    “The Magic Swords of Mythology are varied creatures that can give greal power to their owners, who sometimes are helpless without them. Only Swords have these powerful variations and capabilities. Other weapons being relegated to lesser bonuses due to their shapes, that do not lend themselves to magical incantations.”
    Alex - The special powers thing looks good to me and fits right with the FFC swords. It’s worth noting that the magic sword creation rules, edited by Gygax from the Arneson’s sword creation manuscript as printed in the FFC, are unchanged in every edition of D&D from OD&D to RC and also AD&D to at least 2nd edition. (maybe more - I never yet read the Wotc rulebooks).

Thanks for the feedback, Dan! It’s a very interesting exercise in game archaeology. Funny that so much of what is in the game is the legacy of one man’s poorly-understood notes, as interpreted by someone else.