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
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! 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. 
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
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.
Yeah, that’s true and a pretty apt summary. Of Course, Gygax understood Arnesons’ notes pretty well though, because he had the luxury of talking etc. with Dave for months and vice versa, as they worked on the initial rules. Those correspondences and conversations seem to have dropped off when Gary prepared to publish, but the game was well developed by then.