Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Felblood]

Having dragonslaying only enchant a sword some of the time seems kind of like a cop-out. It might be mechanically balanced, but how do you justify it in the fluff?

I'd prefer if you needed a sword that had killed a dragon to make a flaming sword, but you still needed to take that sword to an awesome enchanter to get any real use out of the potential. This way the rarity of magic in general combines with the rarity of megabeasts, to make flaming swords a truly special prize in a low magic setting, without flooding the higher magic worlds with vorpal greatswords.

[Sowelu]

I dunno.  There's not many dragons to slay.  Is it good to get your most awesome weapon essentially -after- you just killed a final boss?

[Pilsu]

Dragons will breed in the next version. Those fire swords wouldn't be that rare

[Footkerchief]

Dragons will breed in the next version.

Wait, really?  I didn't know he was doing any worldgen updates.  Cool.

[eerr]

is it unreasonable to track the history of every weapon ever made, then cull it?

[Granite26]

is it unreasonable to track the history of every weapon item ever made, then cull it?

fix'd

But seriously, you'd need wear and tear on items or else after 5 years, noone would need crafts ever again.

It's the 'right' way to do things, the game already tracks stolen items and trophies, so there may be some level already in.  It may not be feasible though

[Felblood]

Eventaully, for the full depth of supply and demand, what each town produces will have to be tracked anyway, so that there are things to buy when the game starts. Yes, worldgen item degradation is a must for that to work.

If unimportant items are culled when they get destroyed, it shouldn't make the saves too ridiculously huge, even if worldgen does start taking a lot longer.

Even if the dragons do breed, you could just say that only an original dragon, or only a dragon older than 100 years works.

You'd need to have different pre-requisites for different magics, so that even in a world where dragons are extinct, you could still produce an even more limited number of magic weapons.

Of course, if magic items don't degrade, you could just have the number that there are, when you run out of dragons, be all there is. People can fight over them.

[Normandy]

The slaying of megabeasts shouldn't even give a name to the weapon (unless the megabeast has hundreds of kills under its belt or something). Think of the numerous cliche knight-killing-dragon stories; the weapons are rarely named, and when so were usually named because of special treatment/powers given to them preemptively.

However, upon being named, there should be the chance of the item gaining powers, or at least some sort of awesome non-game mechanical effect. But it has to do something epic and inherently magical. Kill the physical manifestation of a god. Slaughter an entire civilization. The idea of a sword that has slain thousands haunted by the souls of the dead which suck the lifeforce of others and turn them undead or something while driving the mind of the beholder insane sounds too awesome to pass up. Or the hammer which struck down the deity of [field] fertility killing all grass and plants and such nearby. Metaphorical stuff like that.

[i2amroy]

What if the chance of creating a weapon was based upon the [GENPOWER:?] tag, I mean, it is a sort of magic and nothing else is using it. Plus, think, you might need to kill 100 goblins to get some cool ability, but a dragon with a higher genpower might only take three or something like that. That would also make it customizable for modders.

[Heron TSG]

Metaphorical stuff like that.

Hmm, I can now imagine the crossbow used to kill the mega carp "Meatgrinder the Destructor of Dwarvenkind" could be affected in such a way that it sprays carp chunks, bones, and blood whenever it fires an arrow.

[Duke 2.0]

 With all this talk of weapons becoming magical for killing things, I can just see adventurers ignoring weapons and using thongs and socks and detached limbs to kill things.

 Urist: Oy, Rapebritches sure is comforta-AIEEEEEE!
 *Thong bursts into flames*

[zagibu]

All heroes should name their weapons, but the weapon itself should not have any special properties. Instead, it should increase the wearer's combat abilities, but only if he knows about the history of the weapon. You can call it morale or fighting spirit or whatever. It is as important in a fight as skill.

[Felblood]

"All heroes"?

Most heroes? All heroes from civs with a tradition of naming swords?

That's a pretty heavy thing to decide.

care to explain how you came to that conclusion?

[zagibu]

Okok, maybe the weapon doesn't have a name, but an individual wielding an ancient weapon that has been used in heroic battles would surely get some beneficial effects, if it knew the weapons glorious past, right? The naming could be reserved for REALLY great heroes (killcount > 10 ?). Or it could be random.
My main point is, that the weapon itself is unchanged, but still has beneficial effects on the wielder, IF he/she knows its legacy.

[DJ]

IMHO, all dwarven weapons should have names engraved on them, even if the name is something like S123/1052. It just seems to me that dwarven weaponsmiths would put some sort of signature on weapons they make. It's a matter of pride and a sort of guarantee.

This would, of course, make it a bit easier to identify weapons that get found after centuries of being lost, but it doesn't guarantee identification as nobody would recognize the signature of a novice weaponsmith that died centuries ago.