Talk:Functional Weapons of Legacy (3.5e Variant Rule)

Better ways to balance this...
Since time, xp, and gold are all a river (and thus largely inconsequential "charges", especially when done during downtime or pre-chargen), I would like to see this reworked.

Instead of all of those, why not make it a single feat to get everything out of the weapon? I don't think that's too big of a cost, and certainly worth some of the weapons out there instead of effectively making them free compared to other things that increase the power of your character. --Ghostwheel (talk) 11:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Adding on to this, what if the weapon and/or associated feat scaled with the character's Initiator Level or--since these are supposed to encourage the use of maneuvers from particular disciplines anyway--with the highest maneuver the character can use from the discipline associated with the legacy weapon? This allows them to scale all the way through the game and be the artifact that it's supposed to be. The weapon could function as a magical item just fine without the feat, but not have any particular value to an initiator, and then the feat allows the extra-badass things that make it go beyond just a flavored magic weapon. - TG Cid (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Recall that just because they're called "weapons of legacy" doesn't actually make them weapons. There are a bunch of items geared towards casters, psions, bards, and the like. I would much rather see this as a Leadership-lite feat, not in that you call in a cohort that doubles your character, but that you call in a customizable item that scales with your level. The rituals to unlock higher-level stuff is just gravy, and doesn't have any real cost. Instead you spend a feat and get an item that has some really awesome stuff. I mean, look at the options. Some of them are really strong, strong enough that I would spend a feat easily on a character who isn't feat-starved to get em. --Ghostwheel (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Then make a variant that is leadership lite. The point of this variant is to be really, really simple -- and it is, making extremely minimal changes while keeping functionality. Surgo (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sup. While I don't see it as needed, it's really just a matter of power balance.  For lower power games, requiring a feat in addition to the other goods is fair.  Call it the Moderate level version. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @Surgo: The problem is though that this variant isn't balanced. At all levels of play, characters have a finite number of resources with which to improve their character's power level, horizontally or vertically. These resources come in the form of skill points, feats, class levels, and wealth. Using this variant, you add *another* thing on without having any sort of real drawback, thus changing the game's power substantially, especially if there are some characters who have legacy weapons, and others who do not. This is not a good thing IMO, which is why it should cost a feat. --Ghostwheel (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * On the matter of Experience is a River, I always found that to be more theorycraft than anyway. With XP itself it has more sway but not so much for gold.  What do I mean?  Well, you have your WBL.  Some amount is expected to be for consumables, but not all of it.  That is if you spend your entire WBL on potions and scrolls... and then you run out before you get another level, the DM is not expected to just give you your level's worth of gold again.  In practice, the DM slaps you over the head and tells you to buy real items, because the alternative is infinite money as long as you're not spending it on non-consumables.


 * I'm just saying it's not really an issue, only a potential one on paper and not in practice. You only have so much gold for your level, and while a player has the agency to try and exceed their WBL, the DM is under no obligation to actually do so.


 * In short, as long as WBL is maintained, there is no concerns about power above and beyond what is expected. Actually, that's true for any item.  Break WBL, and your level 1 commoners with vorpal chainswords and terminator armor can handle a great deal more now that they have unlimited item powah. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The thing is that weapons of legacy, even with the (rather minor, to tell the truth) cost of the rituals, require incredibly little investment monetarily for the kind of power they give. The reason for this is that they give all the other drawbacks, the ones you're taking out in this variant. They're trading overall character power for an incredibly good item that scales with character level. This is the reason that if you're removing the drawbacks, you need to add a different one, unless you want to have everyone or no one use this variant in any specific game (lest people get unbalanced). --Ghostwheel (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The end cost of a weapon of legacy, fluff requirements and level gates aside, is about that of a +5 weapon (it varies from weapon to weapon but you may have noticed I use that as a template).  In effect it doubles the cost of the weapon you're using, if you go all the way with it.  Otherwise, it's simply the purchase of a +5 weapon with the powers pre-selected for you.  Now one can say that the benefits are better than +5 of enhancements, and this is true.  It is to account for the downside of requirements and level gating, and the unique nature of the weapon.  As unique items, they're subject to a bit more DM grip than say you're average longsword of generic powers and things +3.  Remember it doesn't scale with character level (unless there are specific abilities which do), those level requirements are pre-reqs to prevent you from having said "+5 sword of awesome" at low level even if you've busted WBL wide open.


 * That, and the original drawbacks were bunk and always bunk. Tis my arguement against them that they were never needed.  Now I can say I haven't seen them used too often though in any games, and I know the reason why.  Because their powerset is pre-determined, people don't choose them unless it fits their theme.  In which case they were gonna build a +5 sword of specific theme anyway with the enhancements available to them.  Otherwise, they've had no reason to spend extra on a weapon of legacy when a normal one will do. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ummm... wut? Have you seen what items of legacy can give? Just as a level D ability (gained at level... 6? 7? don't recall) you can get half of Boots of Speed (a 12k item), Knock at will, constant Detect Secret Doors, and NEVER being caught flat-footed ever again. Plus they go up to +10 if you grab weapon enhancement stuff. At higher levels you grab stuff like a 2/3 of a Greater Cloak of Displacement (50k item), Ethereal Jaunt 1/day with no limit on how long you can stay ethereal, and constant freaking Mind Blank (worth 120k). Tell me again how that's "only" worth a +5 sword? --Ghostwheel (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ah, you're talking about the original WoL benefits. I can't relate since I don't use level (insert letter) ability scaling. Instead I just offer a power, and then give it an appropriate level/price that seems correct. Since I don't follow the D C B etc abilities, I can't really compare. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If you're homebrewing all your own weapons of legacy, what's this variant rule supposed to apply to? Can't you just homebrew new items without including drawbacks? --Foxwarrior (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Honestly I forgot they had a customize-your-own list with letter rankings. I suppose I should go back and giving appropriate price suggestions for the various ranks.  When I made this I was addressing the pre-made WoLs. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ...Wut? Again, you're talking as though you haven't ever seen some of the powers of even the premade weapons of legacy.
 * An example is Bones of Li-Peng, one of the easier ones to quantify. Its cost in rituals is 2k (Least) + 12k (Lesser) + 40k (Greater) = 54k over 20 levels. Now here's what it gives:
 * +8 Weapon (128k) + Slotless Dex enhancer (72k) + Slotless Monk's Belt (26k) + 3 slotless +10 to skill items (60k) = 286k.
 * Explain to me how 54k is worth 286k? Because that's what you're giving people if you ignore the drawbacks. And people who, in a specific game do not take a weapon of legacy, are 232k poorer for not having one if this variant is used. That's not balanced. The drawbacks are there to make up the worth of 232k. This is why I say waive all costs and simply have it require a single feat. --Ghostwheel (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not, and I didn't make the Bones of Li-Peng. I think you've misunderstood what I was talking about.


 * The things I've been making have been roughly equaling the price of +5 weapons as my target goal. But that's just with my stuff, there's no rule about that.


 * I have made at least one thing that broke my conventions, and ended up about twice as expensive as normal. And if I were making the Bones of Li-Peng it probably would be ok to make it like 250k or something.


 * Anyway, nothing in this variant rule suggests things should end up at 50k at the end of it, that's just been what I've been doing. What I can say I haven't done is convert pre-made WoL stuff that already exists and see how they'd be priced without the (Letter) rank classification.  I'm sure I'll get around to it one day, though I suspect I might run into a lot of things that aren't balanced with each other within the same letter ranking. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * (EDIT: Out of curiosity I looked it up. Price alone, the bones of li-peng is listed at 2302+2000+12000+40000=56,302.  If you think that price is inappropriate for its benefits, I'd argue that -2 attack, -4 skills, -8 hp, 16 skill points probably don't justify the 200k difference anyway.  In other words; it's a problem with the WotC more than anything. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * See my 54k figure in my previous post. It doesn't take into account the 2302 for the base weapon, but apart from that it's correct. And sure, it's debateable if all that's worth 200k in gold (which is, by the way, around a quarter of your TOTAL wealth at level 20). But it doesn't justify entirely removing the drawbacks, which is why I don't like this variant if it regards all of the weapons of legacy. --Ghostwheel (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)