Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

[kjd-imc] On dwarven arms

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 1:09:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Hi All,

In the recent "Dwarven Defender" thread I mentioned writing more about
how dwarves treat weapons and armor in their culture, IMC. Here are some
musings on the topic.

[for the sake of simplicity, 'arms' means 'weapons and armor'. If I
want to speak about 'weapons' or 'armor' specificly, I'll say 'weapons'
or 'armor'. --kjd]


Most dwarven gods have portfolios involving at least one craft or aspect
of war; the more powerful and popular ones have portfolios associated
with both. While dwarves aren't particularly militant, they do have a
strong martial tradition.

The thought of putting gold or gems on arms intended for *use* strikes
most dwarves as rather wasteful. It's okay for ornamental or ceremonial
items... but many dwarves see those as wasteful altogether. Arms are
tools meant for hard use, after all; making them to be looked at seems
kind of silly.

This leads to some notable behavior among dwarves.

Temples and Halls

Dwarven (martial) temples and halls, as those of humans, are often
'decorated' with arms . However, unlike humans, dwarves present
proven arms here. Almost all arms present will show signs of hard,
hard use. They will be well-maintained and still usable. Armor will
have the dents fixed, weapons will have chips polished out, and so on.
*Of course* there will be no rust.

There are some exceptions here. Some arms will have been 'used up'
and unusable. For instance, the shield of one of my PCs has a place
of honor in his father's hall. He was wearing it when he got chewed
on by a dragon. He survived, the dragon didn't. It's more or less
bent into a cylinder, with a few tooth holes and tears in the steel.
'Repairing' this shield would start with building a new one.

This raises an interesting point. The 'concept' of a particular item
can outlive its components. "This was my father's axe, we've replaced
the handle nine times and the head twice".

Stories

Many dwarven arms have stories behind them. This is for a few
reasons. One is that dwarves like to know the history of their arms.
Another is that dwarves love heroic stories. A third is that dwarves
are, in an obscure way, modest about their achievements, preferring to
let them speak for themselves.

As a result, a dwarf is unlikely to brag about what battles he has
fought in and the enemies defeated. However, he will quite happily
tell you about the battles and enemies his axe has faced and what it
did to them. He won't say 'my axe', though, always 'this axe'.

Gifts

Arms are popular gifts among dwarves. As indicated above, dwarves
appreciate well-proven arms. A dwarf will accept a masterwork dwarven
axe straight from the forge graciously, but if you can give him a
masterwork dwarven axe that has seen action, and the story of its
proving, you'll get his interest.

A new weapon or piece of armor isn't exactly *tasteless*, but it's not
usually notable, either. Most dwarves will try to not give new arms
as a gift.

A father might want his son to go off to war in good kit. He won't
give it to his son, though, not directly. He may give (more likely
lend) money to his son so he can buy the arms -- from a specific
armorer (who *coincidentally* enough has *just* the right thing in
stock, an accident of fate, *really*). Thus, the arms are not a
gift, but bought by the dwarf for himself.

(Dwarves stand on self-sufficiency, and while arms aren't a tacky
gift, money certainly is. Jewelry (and to a lesser extent, gems)
generally isn't because craft is involved). Thus, the father will
typically lend the money to his son to ensure he's well-equipped, and
the son will repay the loan when practical.)

Presentations

Certain ceremonies among dwarves call for the presentation of arms.
These ceremonies are typically to recognize, reward, or grant honor;
granting new arms would almost always be inappropriate.

Granted arms are almost always proven. Sometimes these will be
personal arms of the presenter, or the arms of an ancestor or hero, or
even *those of the recipient*. Each of these gives a different
message.

Presenter's Arms

This is a personal gift of the presenter, indicating significant
favor of the presenter. Depending on the ceremony it might be as
simple as 'you have my favor', or could be as much as 'I expect you
to take my place when it is time'.

The latter case is often applicable for ceremonies of advancement.
For instance, the official arms of the head of a martial order are
used by head of the order in battle, and passed on to his successor
when he retires.

Hero's Arms

This indicates that the presenter believes the recipient closely
matches the original owner to some degree and can be expected to
follow in his bootprints. Since the previous owner was accepted as
a hero, it is believed the recipient is or will be a hero himself.

Personal Arms

This can actually be a greater honor than the other two. Because
the presenter declaims the story of the arms, this gives him a way
to (indirectly) describe the actions of the recipient -- thereby
recognizing those actions as heroic or great deeds.

Concerning Dwarven Defenders

This thread being the impetous for this article, here's how the above
applies to a new Dwarven Defender.

Setting aside how someone becomes a Dwarven Defender (any tests or
other prerequisites), the 'final part' of becoming a Dwarven Defender
is a public ceremony. Stripped to its essentials, the ceremony goes
much like:

The candidate enters a hall and walks past the witnesses. He
reaches the officiant and announces himself.

"I am Ulfgar Stonebreaker, Healer and Builder[1] of Naurond, son of
..." [this goes on for a while]

"I present myself to High Builder[2] to become a defender of the faith
and of our people."

The officiant 'considers', and replies

"Naurond accepts you as his defender and gifts you with these
things.

"This shield was unmoved by Gortag the Giant. The shield that stood
against the Horde of Alnarak. The shield that withstood the fiery
might of Extardranth the Red. May it continue to serve you as it
has, in defense of our people."

"This is the pick that brought down the walls of Nul Tranth. This
pick faced the Horde of Alnarak and ran red as it penetrated to its
heart. Continue to use it as you have, to destroy those who would
disrupt the peace of our people."

After this, a public demonstration of the new Dwarven Defender is
made. One (or more) senior Dwarven Defender comes forward[3] and
challenges the new Defender, with the goal of fighting past him.
Much noise and violence (and probably a few injuries on either side)
later, the challenger steps back and acknowledges the abilities of
the new Defender, and welcomes him to the order.

[1] two designations of priests of Naurond; Naurond is the patron of
masons, siege engineers, and healers -- craft, war, and healing,
IOW.
[2] a higher designation of a priest of Naurond, of course
[3] or another noted dwarven warrior, or two

There are variations by group and cirumstance. Almost always members
of the candidate's family and clan will be present. Also almost
always the available Dwarven Defenders of the group being joined will
be present. The officiant is usually head of the group of Defenders,
but may instead be the king, a high priest (as above), or otherwise
related to those being defended (rather than those doing the
defending).

The other witnesses are typically those being defended (for Naurond
various priests of the church, for the king the members of his court,
and so on). Others may be invited.

Another variation would be in the number of challengers faced. In
this case there would probably be a limit to how long each challenger
fights, and initial standing in the order could be influenced by how
many challengers the candidate faces successfully.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

More about : kjd imc dwarven arms

Anonymous
June 2, 2005 1:35:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in
news:slrnd9s90f.s57.keith.davies@kjdavies.org:

> The thought of putting gold or gems on arms intended for *use*
> strikes most dwarves as rather wasteful.

Hmm... how about as foci for magic - q.v. DMG1? Equally, a weapon
with the power of Trap The Soul should have a honking big gem in it

> Gifts

Items from the giver's own forge should be a clear exception here!

> Presentations

Very nice!
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 2:52:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Quentin Stephens <stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid> wrote:
> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in
> news:slrnd9s90f.s57.keith.davies@kjdavies.org:
>
>> The thought of putting gold or gems on arms intended for *use*
>> strikes most dwarves as rather wasteful.
>
> Hmm... how about as foci for magic - q.v. DMG1? Equally, a weapon
> with the power of Trap The Soul should have a honking big gem in it


Trap the Soul would probably not be a good choice, for several reasons.
The gem is a material component, used up by the spell -- the spell ends
when the gem is broken. As such, you would probably be able to use the
axe as the 'trigger object' form of the spell... which requires that the
target pick it up. You could use it in the 'spell completion' form of
the spell, but then it needn't have the axe at all. For this spell I
wouldn't allow it to be used as 'use activated'.

That said, if you were making a magic item that required such
elaboration it would be seen as a necessary part of the item -- it
wouldn't be meaningless decoration.

Note that while elaborate inlays and gems and whatnot are considered
somewhat wasteful by many dwarves, etching and carvings -- especially
runes -- are just fine.

where a 'fancy' human sword might have a gem in the pommel, and gold and
silver tracing and inlay, a comparably dwarven sword might be made of
brightsteel (harder and more durable, less prone to rusting) with
etching on the blade -- it might be an elaborate pattern, or runes.

>> Gifts
>
> Items from the giver's own forge should be a clear exception here!

I *was* thinking of this when I wrote the article. When I thought of it
it was the wrong time for it, then promptly forgot it.

One straight from one's own forge would of course be quite acceptable.

>> Presentations
>
> Very nice!

Thanks. I tried to figure out how certain ideas my players and I came
up with would work when applied to dwarven arms. This led to some other
ideas I want to pursue another time (they wouldn't have fit this article
well, though this article brought them to mind).


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 3:35:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
> Quentin Stephens <stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid> wrote:
>> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in
>> news:slrnd9s90f.s57.keith.davies@kjdavies.org:
>>
>
>>> Gifts
>>
>> Items from the giver's own forge should be a clear exception here!
>
> I *was* thinking of this when I wrote the article. When I thought of it
> it was the wrong time for it, then promptly forgot it.
>
> One straight from one's own forge would of course be quite acceptable.

I forgot to say, "... but one made and proved personally would still be
preferred."


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
June 2, 2005 11:30:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:

Nice stuff, just a couple of minor points.


> Dwarven (martial) temples and halls, as those of humans, are often
> 'decorated' with arms . However, unlike humans, dwarves present
> proven arms here. Almost all arms present will show signs of hard,
> hard use. They will be well-maintained and still usable. Armor will
> have the dents fixed, weapons will have chips polished out, and so on.
> *Of course* there will be no rust.

I like this quite a bit.

IMC there are a dozen or so dwarven clans. The House of Stone, the
House of Steel, and the House of Thunder are the most important.
Thunder is the only house that makes much use of arcane magic. It's
also the only one that the PCs have been interacting much with lately.

I'm thinking how to translate this. "Where most dwarven halls have
just used weapons and shields, the House of Thunder also has discharged
wands and at least one dead ioun stone..."


> As a result, a dwarf is unlikely to brag about what battles he has
> fought in and the enemies defeated. However, he will quite happily
> tell you about the battles and enemies his axe has faced and what it
> did to them. He won't say 'my axe', though, always 'this axe'.

Love it.


> Arms are popular gifts among dwarves. As indicated above, dwarves
> appreciate well-proven arms. A dwarf will accept a masterwork dwarven
> axe straight from the forge graciously, but if you can give him a
> masterwork dwarven axe that has seen action, and the story of its
> proving, you'll get his interest.
>
> A new weapon or piece of armor isn't exactly *tasteless*, but it's not
> usually notable, either. Most dwarves will try to not give new arms
> as a gift.

Also good.

[snip more good stuff]


> Concerning Dwarven Defenders

I've had a belated thought on this. DDs have "craft" as a class skill.
I'm thinking that it might be traditional -- not required, no no, but
traditional -- for a DD to throw the occasional rank into craft.
Consistent with the whole "paragon of dwarvishness" aspect.

One drawback to this is that most DDs will not be high-IQ types, and 2
skill ranks/level doesn't leave a lot to spare for Craft (stonework) or
whatever.

Also, it's rather nice for a fighter-type to have ranks in Listen,
Sense Motive and Spot (the other DD class skills). (1)

While I'm on the subject of DDs, I think it's a good PrC, but IMO it
does suffer from the common PrC problem of uneven advancement. That
is, there are some levels that are a lot more desirable than others.
Staring at the DD advancement, it looks like there are "breaks" between
levels 1-2 and 8-9, where minimaxing players might naturally drop out.
(2)

It occurs to me that in-game intangible "rewards" can help this. So,
going from a 1st to 2nd level DD may not be a big deal in game terms,
but you move from an "apprentice" to a "stonelord". Or maybe anyone
can take one level, but you can't advance past one without proving
yourself.


Waldo

(1) Though this has the odd effect of making Wisdom a non-dump stat
for would-be DDs.

(2) We haven't played with the DD yet, so it's not clear to me whether
this will work out in practice. But the Defensive Stance is obviously
not as good as the barbarian's Rage, because the DD is stuck in one
damn square. In many encounters, this will render it useless. This in
turn means there's not that big a difference between using it N
times/day and N+1 times/day... it's not likely you'll use it more than
once or twice a day anyhow. Or so ISTM. (3)

(3) So, if I were tweaking the class, I think I'd move Mobile Defense
back two or three levels.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 12:42:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Yummy.

-Michael
June 2, 2005 4:11:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:


> As I said, IMC any significant god will have a martial or craft
> portfolio. Any DD associated with a god with a craft portfolio *should*
> take ranks in the craft.
>
> I think it's entirely a character thing, though. I don't think it
> should be mandated in rules.

Sure.


> > It occurs to me that in-game intangible "rewards" can help this. So,
> > going from a 1st to 2nd level DD may not be a big deal in game terms,
> > but you move from an "apprentice" to a "stonelord". Or maybe anyone
> > can take one level, but you can't advance past one without proving
> > yourself.
>
> The former might encourage people to not dip, the latter probably won't.
> In fact, I think it'd have the opposite of the desired effect. "I can
> only take one level without proving myself (i.e. 'expense')? Okay, I'll
> dip and move on; that get's me what I want anyway."

Ohh... you might be surprised. IME, sometimes this can make it more
attractive. More than sometimes.

I've never had DDs either, BTW. So this is the first time I've taken a
long look at them.


Waldo
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 4:47:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrnd9s90f.s57.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...

> This raises an interesting point. The 'concept' of a particular item
> can outlive its components. "This was my father's axe, we've replaced
> the handle nine times and the head twice".

Do you get "Only Fools and Horses" in Canada by any chance?
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 4:57:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in
news:slrnd9sf1v.s57.keith.davies@kjdavies.org:

>>> Presentations
>>
>> Very nice!
>
> Thanks.

Consider the whole thoroughly stolen :) 
June 2, 2005 5:36:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 1 Jun 2005 21:35:34 GMT, Quentin Stephens <stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid>
dared speak in front of ME:

>Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in
>news:slrnd9s90f.s57.keith.davies@kjdavies.org:
>
>> The thought of putting gold or gems on arms intended for *use*
>> strikes most dwarves as rather wasteful.
>
>Hmm... how about as foci for magic - q.v. DMG1? Equally, a weapon
>with the power of Trap The Soul should have a honking big gem in it

I can't speak for KD's campaign, but stock dwarves generaly dislike
arcen magic to begin with. Dwarves can certainly become wizards and
sorcerors, but it's a major hit to their social standing (which is
very important to the 'typical' dwarf.)

Clerical foci, OTOH...

>> Gifts
>
>Items from the giver's own forge should be a clear exception here!

Perhaps, but then *accepting* such a gift is an honor to the giver.
The dwarf is essentially saying "Your craft is sufficient that
anything new from your forge is as good as proven to me."

Or he's just being polite.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 6:51:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Symbol <jb70@talk21.com> wrote:
>
> "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnd9s90f.s57.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
>
>> This raises an interesting point. The 'concept' of a particular item
>> can outlive its components. "This was my father's axe, we've replaced
>> the handle nine times and the head twice".
>
> Do you get "Only Fools and Horses" in Canada by any chance?

I have no idea.

The whole bit about 'same axe, all components replaced more than once'
I've heard a few times. It seemed dwarvish.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 7:35:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Waldo <peggoliathy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Keith Davies wrote:
>
> Nice stuff, just a couple of minor points.
>
>
>> Dwarven (martial) temples and halls, as those of humans, are often
>> 'decorated' with arms . However, unlike humans, dwarves present
>> proven arms here. Almost all arms present will show signs of hard,
>> hard use. They will be well-maintained and still usable. Armor will
>> have the dents fixed, weapons will have chips polished out, and so on.
>> *Of course* there will be no rust.
>
> I like this quite a bit.
>
> IMC there are a dozen or so dwarven clans. The House of Stone, the
> House of Steel, and the House of Thunder are the most important.
> Thunder is the only house that makes much use of arcane magic. It's
> also the only one that the PCs have been interacting much with lately.
>
> I'm thinking how to translate this. "Where most dwarven halls have
> just used weapons and shields, the House of Thunder also has discharged
> wands and at least one dead ioun stone..."

Rings, rods, and wonderous items. Bracers of defense would probably
find a place here, 'magic ring' has dwarf written all over it, and rods
are permanent magic sticks.

Wands are by their nature transient (charged items). Scrolls and
potions are even more so; I don't think you'd ever see them on display.

>> Concerning Dwarven Defenders
>
> I've had a belated thought on this. DDs have "craft" as a class
> skill. I'm thinking that it might be traditional -- not required, no
> no, but traditional -- for a DD to throw the occasional rank into
> craft. Consistent with the whole "paragon of dwarvishness" aspect.

As I said, IMC any significant god will have a martial or craft
portfolio. Any DD associated with a god with a craft portfolio *should*
take ranks in the craft.

I think it's entirely a character thing, though. I don't think it
should be mandated in rules.

IMC it's a little easier to manage because for clerics of a craft god,
there's often a component of advancement in the church hierarchy that
requires degree of skill in the craft. This applies to most
organizations IMC, though it's a little weaker that feat and class
prereqs. For instance, rather than 'you need $n ranks' you have to be
able to hit a certain DC taking 10 without using magic. For instance,
becoming a master smith in a particular guild may require certification
by at least three local masters, two years membership in the guild, and
the ability to hit DC20 taking 10 with nonmagic tools. This is all
achievable by a first-level character.

> One drawback to this is that most DDs will not be high-IQ types, and 2
> skill ranks/level doesn't leave a lot to spare for Craft (stonework)
> or whatever.
>
> Also, it's rather nice for a fighter-type to have ranks in Listen,
> Sense Motive and Spot (the other DD class skills). (1)

Yes. Under the circumstances these other skills probably should have
precedence, from a game perspective.

> While I'm on the subject of DDs, I think it's a good PrC, but IMO it
> does suffer from the common PrC problem of uneven advancement. That
> is, there are some levels that are a lot more desirable than others.
> Staring at the DD advancement, it looks like there are "breaks"
> between levels 1-2 and 8-9, where minimaxing players might naturally
> drop out. (2)
>
> It occurs to me that in-game intangible "rewards" can help this. So,
> going from a 1st to 2nd level DD may not be a big deal in game terms,
> but you move from an "apprentice" to a "stonelord". Or maybe anyone
> can take one level, but you can't advance past one without proving
> yourself.

The former might encourage people to not dip, the latter probably won't.
In fact, I think it'd have the opposite of the desired effect. "I can
only take one level without proving myself (i.e. 'expense')? Okay, I'll
dip and move on; that get's me what I want anyway."

> (1) Though this has the odd effect of making Wisdom a non-dump stat
> for would-be DDs.

Would-be DD probably should be perceptive (which is why they get those
class skills); having decent Wis makes quite a bit of sense.

> (2) We haven't played with the DD yet, so it's not clear to me whether
> this will work out in practice. But the Defensive Stance is obviously
> not as good as the barbarian's Rage, because the DD is stuck in one
> damn square. In many encounters, this will render it useless. This in
> turn means there's not that big a difference between using it N
> times/day and N+1 times/day... it's not likely you'll use it more than
> once or twice a day anyhow. Or so ISTM. (3)
>
> (3) So, if I were tweaking the class, I think I'd move Mobile Defense
> back two or three levels.

I haven't looked at it that closely. I haven't had a player interested
in taking it. Dwarves have been pretty uncommon IMC -- in the setting,
not just among my players. They're a largely insular society; dwarves
rarely leave their kingdom or travel with nondwarves.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 8:15:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrnd9u77r.uo4.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
> Symbol <jb70@talk21.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
> > news:slrnd9s90f.s57.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
> >
> >> This raises an interesting point. The 'concept' of a particular
item
> >> can outlive its components. "This was my father's axe, we've
replaced
> >> the handle nine times and the head twice".
> >
> > Do you get "Only Fools and Horses" in Canada by any chance?
>
> I have no idea.
>
> The whole bit about 'same axe, all components replaced more than once'
> I've heard a few times. It seemed dwarvish.

It's a classic line from said show that aired in the 90's over here. I'd
always assumed that's where it originated (although substitute axe for
broom).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/onlyfools/quotes/quote11.sh...

Doesn't seem as funny written down.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 8:15:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Symbol <jb70@talk21.com> wrote:
>
> "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnd9u77r.uo4.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
>> Symbol <jb70@talk21.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
>> > news:slrnd9s90f.s57.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
>> >
>> >> This raises an interesting point. The 'concept' of a particular
>> >> item can outlive its components. "This was my father's axe,
>> >> we've replaced the handle nine times and the head twice".
>> >
>> > Do you get "Only Fools and Horses" in Canada by any chance?
>>
>> I have no idea.
>>
>> The whole bit about 'same axe, all components replaced more than once'
>> I've heard a few times. It seemed dwarvish.
>
> It's a classic line from said show that aired in the 90's over here.
> I'd always assumed that's where it originated (although substitute axe
> for broom).
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/onlyfools/quotes/quote11.sh...

Nope, way older than that. I remember being amused by the idea when I
was a kid.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 1:35:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 21:09:36 GMT, Keith Davies
<keith.davies@kjdavies.org> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> The thought of putting gold or gems on arms intended for *use* strikes
> most dwarves as rather wasteful. It's okay for ornamental or ceremonial
> items... but many dwarves see those as wasteful altogether. Arms are
> tools meant for hard use, after all; making them to be looked at seems
> kind of silly.

Ah, but a well made tool, well suited for it's intended use, has a
beauty all of its own. Thus Dwarfs make tools that are functional,
with never a wasted line, but beautiful too.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 1:35:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 21:09:36 GMT, Keith Davies
><keith.davies@kjdavies.org> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> The thought of putting gold or gems on arms intended for *use* strikes
>> most dwarves as rather wasteful. It's okay for ornamental or ceremonial
>> items... but many dwarves see those as wasteful altogether. Arms are
>> tools meant for hard use, after all; making them to be looked at seems
>> kind of silly.
>
> Ah, but a well made tool, well suited for it's intended use, has a
> beauty all of its own. Thus Dwarfs make tools that are functional,
> with never a wasted line, but beautiful too.

Well, yes. They tend to be either surprisingly elegant in construction.
If they *want* something more ornamented, though, it runs more toward
etching, engraving, carving, that sort of thing, rather than adding
precious metals and gems.

Of course, they may then proceed into battle using this simple,
unadorned axe and wearing a silver belt with a gold buckle, adorned with
gems, but that's another matter entirely.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 1:35:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>
> Well, yes. They tend to be either surprisingly elegant in construction.
> If they *want* something more ornamented, though, it runs more toward
> etching, engraving, carving, that sort of thing, rather than adding
> precious metals and gems.

Someday I'll grammar learn. Or check my sentences after I change how I
write them.

They tend to be surprisingly elegant in construction. If they want
ornamentation, they run more toward etching, engraving, carving, that
sort of thing, rather than adding precious metals and gems.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 11:50:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2005 21:35:34 GMT, Quentin Stephens <stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid>
> dared speak in front of ME:
>
>>Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in
>>news:slrnd9s90f.s57.keith.davies@kjdavies.org:
>>
>>> The thought of putting gold or gems on arms intended for *use*
>>> strikes most dwarves as rather wasteful.
>>
>>Hmm... how about as foci for magic - q.v. DMG1? Equally, a weapon
>>with the power of Trap The Soul should have a honking big gem in it
>
> I can't speak for KD's campaign, but stock dwarves generaly dislike
> arcen magic to begin with. Dwarves can certainly become wizards and
> sorcerors, but it's a major hit to their social standing (which is
> very important to the 'typical' dwarf.)
>
> Clerical foci, OTOH...

Depends on the setting, really. *D&D* dwarves classically had an
aversion to arcane magic (no dwarven wizards until 3e!) but historically
they were among the more magical races. Consider, the Norse had dwarves
being excellent enchanters (Thor's hammer was made by the dwarves IIRC),
in Arthurian period and medieval they were considered magical
tricksters, etc. Allowing dwarves to be good at magic in general (i.e.
wizards) is certainly reasonable.

I allowed dwarven wizards in 2e, specializing in enchantments and
abjurations ('making magic items' and 'wards, bindings, antimagic') and
earth magics, and added fire magics later (fire of the earth, etc.).
Elves focused on air and water (sea elves; this was the origin of my
mereaelves). Halflings were earth and water (halflings had a strong
druidic tradition). Gnomes were fire and air (light, illusion,
creativity, etc.).

(Before that, in BD&D, I figured since elves were basically Ftr/MU,
halflings were basically Ftr/Thf, dwarves should really be Ftr/Clr... I
backed off a little bit of their combat ability, gave them some turning
and clerical spellcasting. "Clerics with axes", basically... it worked
out okay.)


All that said, IMC dwarves tend to rely more on technology than magic in
any case. They still respect personal arms, but they've got probably
the best firearms available (and most prolific) and have been using
steam engines for about a century. I think I've written about that
before; at some point I may do a [kjd-imc] on the various watercraft in
use IMC.

So, dwarves do use arcane magic. It's not common. Skilled
practitioners are respected, especially since they're becoming less
common. It's not that dwarves figure arcane magic is bad so much as
technology is more crafty. You can *see* how it works.

>>> Gifts
>>
>>Items from the giver's own forge should be a clear exception here!
>
> Perhaps, but then *accepting* such a gift is an honor to the giver.
> The dwarf is essentially saying "Your craft is sufficient that
> anything new from your forge is as good as proven to me."
>
> Or he's just being polite.

Consider instead (and without it being patronizing) how a mother
appreciates a gift from her child. Yes, a bought gift is nice, might be
very pretty, wellmade, etc.... but something made *by* the child for his
mother is much better received.

A dwarf would generally rather recieve arms crafted specifically for him
by the giver than better quality arms purchased and given. If the giver
created the arms himself he's making a gift of his skill, such as it may
be. That's worth more than the arms themselves.

Of course, if the arms are very well-crafted, that's even better. If
the giver made them and went out and proved them, better yet again. If
I had to put numbers on it:


'points' 'type'
1 bought
4 personally crafted
+2 masterwork
+3 proven
+5 greatly proven (not cumulative with proven)

The most favored gift of arms are personally-crafted masterwork arms,
greatly proven (11). Purchased MW arms, unproven (3) pale before that.
Purchased, proven arms are about par with personally crafted arms of the
same quality.

If I had to put numbers on it.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
June 7, 2005 3:51:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 19:50:11 GMT, Keith Davies
<keith.davies@kjdavies.org> dared speak in front of ME:

>Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote:
>> On 1 Jun 2005 21:35:34 GMT, Quentin Stephens <stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid>
>> dared speak in front of ME:
>>
>>>Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in
>>>news:slrnd9s90f.s57.keith.davies@kjdavies.org:
>>>
>>>> The thought of putting gold or gems on arms intended for *use*
>>>> strikes most dwarves as rather wasteful.
>>>
>>>Hmm... how about as foci for magic - q.v. DMG1? Equally, a weapon
>>>with the power of Trap The Soul should have a honking big gem in it
>>
>> I can't speak for KD's campaign, but stock dwarves generaly dislike
>> arcen magic to begin with. Dwarves can certainly become wizards and
>> sorcerors, but it's a major hit to their social standing (which is
>> very important to the 'typical' dwarf.)
>>
>> Clerical foci, OTOH...
>
>Depends on the setting, really.

Well, yes. Which is why presumed the combination of the forum and the
word "stock" would indicate what setting I was referring to :p 
(Also why I said I couldn't speak for your campaign.)

>So, dwarves do use arcane magic. It's not common. Skilled
>practitioners are respected, especially since they're becoming less
>common. It's not that dwarves figure arcane magic is bad so much as
>technology is more crafty. You can *see* how it works.

Aye. And you can *touch* it, when it's not in use. You can study the
craftsmanship involved - which you can't really do with most magic
(permanent effects notwithstanding.)

>>>Items from the giver's own forge should be a clear exception here!
>>
>> Perhaps, but then *accepting* such a gift is an honor to the giver.
>> The dwarf is essentially saying "Your craft is sufficient that
>> anything new from your forge is as good as proven to me."
>>
>> Or he's just being polite.
>
>Consider instead (and without it being patronizing) how a mother
>appreciates a gift from her child. Yes, a bought gift is nice, might be
>very pretty, wellmade, etc.... but something made *by* the child for his
>mother is much better received.

Well, yes. I wasn't thinking in terms of a gift given out of
sentiment, for some reason; rather, I was thinking of a gift given as
a reward.

I suppose my thoughts would be more appropriate to a case where a
dwarf purchases something straight from the forge, moreso than when he
accepts it as a gift..

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 10:47:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 19:50:11 GMT, Keith Davies
><keith.davies@kjdavies.org> dared speak in front of ME:
>
>>So, dwarves do use arcane magic. It's not common. Skilled
>>practitioners are respected, especially since they're becoming less
>>common. It's not that dwarves figure arcane magic is bad so much as
>>technology is more crafty. You can *see* how it works.
>
> Aye. And you can *touch* it, when it's not in use. You can study the
> craftsmanship involved - which you can't really do with most magic
> (permanent effects notwithstanding.)

Good point.

>>Consider instead (and without it being patronizing) how a mother
>>appreciates a gift from her child. Yes, a bought gift is nice, might be
>>very pretty, wellmade, etc.... but something made *by* the child for his
>>mother is much better received.
>
> Well, yes. I wasn't thinking in terms of a gift given out of
> sentiment, for some reason; rather, I was thinking of a gift given as
> a reward.

Hrm. Let me think about that.

I'm not sure that would likely happen, to be honest. The only time it
might is if the two already have a relationship such that a personal
gift like that would be appropriate... and even then, most rewards would
probably be better treated as otherwise.

> I suppose my thoughts would be more appropriate to a case where a
> dwarf purchases something straight from the forge, moreso than when he
> accepts it as a gift..

I was picturing most purchases being just that -- straight up purchases.
The item may or may not have been proven, and it has little bearing on
how it is received. A dwarf may of course prefer to purchase a proven
weapon, but I suspect they're actually pretty hard to come by for sale.

In most cases I think arms would only be sold by proven (that is, those
with good reputation for quality) smiths (possibly crafted by their
'apprentices' -- proteges might be closer -- under their guidance).

Hrm... it comes to me that what I said earlier about purchasing arms and
dwarves starting out might not be true, actually. Given how dwarves
feel about arms...

I like this. Most new arms are proven by new warriors. A dwarf
starting out receives his initial arms on credit -- he proves them and
pays the smith what they're worth when he's done. The cost includes the
story of their proving, and the payment is based on the proving. A
weapon that killed a dragon is obviously worth more than one that killed
20 goblins, after all (and the owner can probably afford to pay more,
too).

Given that dwarves don't boast of themselves directly, but are generally
truthful otherwise, this could make for some interesting stories.
Trying to downplay the proving of a weapon would be disgraceful -- an
offense against the weapon and its crafter, and somewhat against
oneself.

I'm not sure how this would behave with regard to 'upgrading'. I think
most dwarves would stick with their current arms, usually (which is
another reason presentation arms might be the dwarf's current arms).

I should probably think about this a bit more, and I'm too tired to see
all the implications here.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 1:38:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:
> Quentin Stephens <stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid> wrote:
>>Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in
>>>The thought of putting gold or gems on arms intended for *use*
>>>strikes most dwarves as rather wasteful.
>>Hmm... how about as foci for magic - q.v. DMG1? Equally, a weapon
>>with the power of Trap The Soul should have a honking big gem in it
> Note that while elaborate inlays and gems and whatnot are considered
> somewhat wasteful by many dwarves, etching and carvings -- especially
> runes -- are just fine.

See, given that they work with gems and metals so much, I always envisioned that
the etchings and carvings were full of various gem dust, to add colour and
contrast to the actual pattern carved. Us hoomans put that garish gem in the
pommel or scabbard beacause gems are more rare for us, so we gotta make it a
main course. Them dwarves, it's the garnish.

How about the big gems for their earrings or big honkin Mr T necklaces?
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the
end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 1:52:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:
> Depends on the setting, really. *D&D* dwarves classically had an
> aversion to arcane magic (no dwarven wizards until 3e!) but historically
> they were among the more magical races. Consider, the Norse had dwarves
> being excellent enchanters (Thor's hammer was made by the dwarves IIRC),

Well, you have to argue that the svartalfr are dwarves... In Norse
myth
the distinctions between words like elf, dwarf, troll, etc. are really
not
all that good. So, you can say the dwarves created Thor's hammer,
and be correct. But I can say it was Dark Elves and be equally
correct.
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 9:41:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

~consul <consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote:
> Keith Davies wrote:
>> Quentin Stephens <stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid> wrote:
>>>Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in
>>>>The thought of putting gold or gems on arms intended for *use*
>>>>strikes most dwarves as rather wasteful.
>>>Hmm... how about as foci for magic - q.v. DMG1? Equally, a weapon
>>>with the power of Trap The Soul should have a honking big gem in it
>> Note that while elaborate inlays and gems and whatnot are considered
>> somewhat wasteful by many dwarves, etching and carvings -- especially
>> runes -- are just fine.
>
> See, given that they work with gems and metals so much, I always
> envisioned that the etchings and carvings were full of various gem
> dust, to add colour and contrast to the actual pattern carved. Us
> hoomans put that garish gem in the pommel or scabbard beacause gems
> are more rare for us, so we gotta make it a main course. Them dwarves,
> it's the garnish.

Dust and chips. Hmm.

Those might be used, since they're more or less scrap (except diamond
dust, that has industrial applications). I think they'd still be more
likely to leave them unadorned -- or maybe used enamels or something.

It's a tough one. On the one hand it's a way to use up scrap -- less
wastage in the end. OTOH, it's... scrap. Leftovers. Not the best
material. They're unlikely to apply gold foil for a few reasons. One
is that it hides the actual work, another is that you're making
something look like gold that isn't pure gold, a third is that it's
still putting gold on a tool expecting hard use. It's not a lot of
gold, but still.

That suggests that enamel isn't likely either, then. The clean lines
and elegance of the form is itself the decoration; adding stuff to that
makes it gaudy.

> How about the big gems for their earrings or big honkin Mr T
> necklaces?

What about them? Jewelry is another matter -- they'll wear belts of
gold and silver, pendants and amulets (usually under the beard, perhaps
over depending on the ceremony -- or braided into the the beard)...
I've never really considered it, but earrings seem unlikely, what with
the helmets and other headgear they wear.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 11:31:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <slrndad548.45n.keith.davies@kjdavies.org>,
Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>I'm not sure how this would behave with regard to 'upgrading'. I think
>most dwarves would stick with their current arms, usually (which is
>another reason presentation arms might be the dwarf's current arms).

If you could justify a single upgrading, a 3rd level or higher dwarf might be
willing to accept (buy with a feat) an Ancestral Relic. Its magical
properties can be upgraded without giving up the weapon/armour/whatever. The
feat also seems to fit well with your idea of presenting arms.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 1:57:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Klassen <klassen@rowan.edu> wrote:
> Keith Davies wrote:
>> Depends on the setting, really. *D&D* dwarves classically had an
>> aversion to arcane magic (no dwarven wizards until 3e!) but historically
>> they were among the more magical races. Consider, the Norse had dwarves
>> being excellent enchanters (Thor's hammer was made by the dwarves IIRC),
>
> Well, you have to argue that the svartalfr are dwarves... In Norse
> myth the distinctions between words like elf, dwarf, troll, etc. are
> really not all that good. So, you can say the dwarves created Thor's
> hammer, and be correct. But I can say it was Dark Elves and be
> equally correct.

I've usually seen them presented as dwarves, so that's what I wrote up.
That said, and if I'm right about German cognates, 'svartalfr' does
translate pretty close to 'black elf'.

It could be either way, I suppose. In a fair amount of European
mythology 'dwarf' and 'elf' (and 'faerie') are used pretty
interchangably.

All things considered I'd say that dwarves don't have an inherent
non-arcane-magical nature, from source literature. In a particular
campaign -- even the core rules -- they might, but it's not required
that they be so.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 2:02:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
> In article <slrndad548.45n.keith.davies@kjdavies.org>,
> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>I'm not sure how this would behave with regard to 'upgrading'. I think
>>most dwarves would stick with their current arms, usually (which is
>>another reason presentation arms might be the dwarf's current arms).
>
> If you could justify a single upgrading, a 3rd level or higher dwarf
> might be willing to accept (buy with a feat) an Ancestral Relic. Its
> magical properties can be upgraded without giving up the
> weapon/armour/whatever. The feat also seems to fit well with your
> idea of presenting arms.

Indeed. Where's Ancestral Relic from?

I was going to do something of a cross between Item Familiar and the
samurai ability to improve his arms. You take the feat, you can spend
XP directly to 'enchant' an item.

Downside: it works only for this specific weapon
Upside: you can avoid a lot of the other prereqs for enchanting, and it
doesn't cost gold. Just XP, probably on the order of 15-20% of market
value (plus any XP-specific costs).

15% is pretty close to what the item is 'worth' (normally 1/2 market
price in gold, +1/25 market price in XP; converting gold to XP at normal
5:1 ratio gives 14%). I'm not sure if waiving most of the spell
knowledge prerequisites is balanced with only being able to 'enchant' a
single item this way; I may want to adjust the XP cost up to cover the
lack of need for spell knowledge, caster level (use character level
instead), etc. Also, 20% I can do in my head pretty easily.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 3:52:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <slrndahf46.rqm.keith.davies@kjdavies.org>,
Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
>> In article <slrndad548.45n.keith.davies@kjdavies.org>,
>> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>>I'm not sure how this would behave with regard to 'upgrading'. I think
>>>most dwarves would stick with their current arms, usually (which is
>>>another reason presentation arms might be the dwarf's current arms).
>>
>> If you could justify a single upgrading, a 3rd level or higher dwarf
>> might be willing to accept (buy with a feat) an Ancestral Relic. Its
>> magical properties can be upgraded without giving up the
>> weapon/armour/whatever. The feat also seems to fit well with your
>> idea of presenting arms.
>
>Indeed. Where's Ancestral Relic from?

Book of Exalted Deeds.

>I was going to do something of a cross between Item Familiar and the
>samurai ability to improve his arms. You take the feat, you can spend
>XP directly to 'enchant' an item.

IIRC Ancestral Relic upgrades cost GP equal to the difference between the cost
of the old power(s) and the cost of the new, plus prayer/meditation time
comparable to the time to add the new enchantment to a normal weapon.

>Downside: it works only for this specific weapon
>Upside: you can avoid a lot of the other prereqs for enchanting, and it
> doesn't cost gold. Just XP, probably on the order of 15-20% of market
> value (plus any XP-specific costs).

This might make sense as an alternative mechanism for Ancestral Relic.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 7:27:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
> In article <slrndahf46.rqm.keith.davies@kjdavies.org>,
> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <slrndad548.45n.keith.davies@kjdavies.org>,
>>> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>>>I'm not sure how this would behave with regard to 'upgrading'. I think
>>>>most dwarves would stick with their current arms, usually (which is
>>>>another reason presentation arms might be the dwarf's current arms).
>>>
>>> If you could justify a single upgrading, a 3rd level or higher dwarf
>>> might be willing to accept (buy with a feat) an Ancestral Relic. Its
>>> magical properties can be upgraded without giving up the
>>> weapon/armour/whatever. The feat also seems to fit well with your
>>> idea of presenting arms.
>>
>>Indeed. Where's Ancestral Relic from?
>
> Book of Exalted Deeds.

Ah, okay. I'll look it up when I go upstairs.

>>I was going to do something of a cross between Item Familiar and the
>>samurai ability to improve his arms. You take the feat, you can spend
>>XP directly to 'enchant' an item.
>
> IIRC Ancestral Relic upgrades cost GP equal to the difference between
> the cost of the old power(s) and the cost of the new, plus
> prayer/meditation time comparable to the time to add the new
> enchantment to a normal weapon.

That's basically what I was going to do, using XP rather than gold. You
still pay only the difference when upgrading (though maybe at a higher
than standard rate -- 20% rather than 14%).

>>Downside: it works only for this specific weapon
>>Upside: you can avoid a lot of the other prereqs for enchanting, and it
>> doesn't cost gold. Just XP, probably on the order of 15-20% of market
>> value (plus any XP-specific costs).
>
> This might make sense as an alternative mechanism for Ancestral Relic.

I'll have to read the Ancestral Relic feat before I can comment
intelligently. I'll go take a look now, in fact.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
!