Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Chrono Nexus 09-05-06, 09:05 AM	I am playing a session of DnD everyweek. The DM severely restricted class choices... and everyone in the party is human. I can live with that... but this DM made up a really BS houserule that screws me specifically over (that only seems to effect me). Although I am not proficient in the use of a scythe (lvl 1 rog), I have one in my inventory. I do not plan to use it until I am capable... but the DM housrules that I take huge penalties on tons of skills.... like hide, move silently, sleight of hand, balance, swim, etc... based on how large the weapon is, and because I am nonprof. I tried to explain to the person that weapons don't come with a check penalty, but she refuses to take back the call. What should I do?
Gil Gwath 09-05-06, 09:36 AM	Drop the scythe.
LCD2YOU 09-05-06, 09:43 AM	Your DM has a point, of sorts. Try strapping a large object on your back and try to go through underbrush, etc. Any check penalty is actually based on weight vs CC, but as long as the rule is applied evenly, ie, everyone with large weapons or large objects strapped to their backs take the penalty, then there really is not much you can do. It is not the rules that (generally) are the problem, it is when the rules are applied unevenly. So I agree with Gil, drop it until you are proficient.
Judging Eagle 09-05-06, 10:13 AM	Have an other party member carry for that thing for you. Also, tell your DM to read the rules. She didn't make the game up and unless she knows how THIS SYSTEM works and WHY IT WORKS THE WAY IT DOES, she should have no reason to change the rules b/c she doesn't like the way it works. I really hate a game master who doesn't actually bother to read the rules of the system that they're playing. I'm guesing that your DM played Advanced DnD, and thus is used to a rule system that allowed for stupid and impossible things, while at the same time not allowing things that are perfectly possible.
b3jsd73jfx 09-05-06, 10:18 AM	Actually, that rule seems quite fair (as already stated). Just make sure it gets applied to others carrying large weapons and there's nothing wrong with it. As for Judging Eagle, DM's can make any rule they wish. It may not make sense, but it doesn't have to. Just normally means that people won't stick around for long. The rule she made seems quite fair
Chrono Nexus 09-05-06, 10:30 AM	Actually, that rule seems quite fair (as already stated). Just make sure it gets applied to others carrying large weapons and there's nothing wrong with it. As for Judging Eagle, DM's can make any rule they wish. It may not make sense, but it doesn't have to. Just normally means that people won't stick around for long. The rule she made seems quite fair Yeah, except it only applied to me. DnD isn't supossed to match real life step for step... if it did, it would have a wounds system, backpacks wouldn't weigh 2 lbs, and rainstorms wouldn't destroy entire communities (each droplet doing 20d6 falling damage to houses and people). Also, the penalty, as she described it, would be "huge".... even if she ressurected the ADnD encumberance rules for bigger objects it wouldn't be that high... it only weighs 12 lb, and it is about as big as a greatsword. I'll just trade in the scythe for a longsword and shovel, then.
b3jsd73jfx 09-05-06, 10:40 AM	Yeah, if it's only applied to you then there is something wrong with it. And yes, while D&D doesn't match real life in every aspect, the basic effects of gravity and physics would play into effect here. As in, I have a huge scythe on my back and I'm going to walk into a bush (to use an earlier example). Chances are, unless the bush is as big as a scythe then the scythe will stick out and give me away completely! (Also, for note, I'm assuming the scythe is a large scythe, which would in fact be larger than a greatsword. Although I don't have my PHB on me so I can't check).
Sulaco 09-05-06, 10:41 AM	I tried to explain to the person that weapons don't come with a check penalty, but she refuses to take back the call. What should I do? It is also impossible to swing a 6 foot greatsword in a 5 foot corridor, but it happens all the time in D&D. The game doesn't take things like that into account cos they tend not to make the game much fun. Try explaining to the DM that a lot tedious real-life junk like encumbrance due to size is ignored for the sake of gameplay. If she doesn't budge you have two choices: Drop the scythe or drop the DM.
Kimokeo 09-05-06, 11:45 AM	There are some things the rules don't cover. Weight of an item vs. bulk of the item. I happen to live near a farm that has several Scythes. I have my own two-handed sword. I could make a scabbard for it with a proper belt and carry it behind me. You should look at a Scythe before strapping it to your back. It's common sense. It's like the Master Thrower who carries a spear in each hand with a dozen strapped to his back. No Quiver of Ehlonna. Just strapped their in individual quivers. I'd talk to the DM about the amount of penalty. A Scythe is a really awkward weapon to strap to your back, unlike a very long sword. Even a two-handed sword in a scabbard could give you trouble moving about, but not like a Scythe. I'd penalize you but not because of proficiency. It would be because of awkwardness. Nothing great, maybe just a -2 to -4 overall depending on the skill being used. I wouldn't punish combat unless you get in a tight corridor. The weight is already measured against your strength so no need to go there. If you're being singled out, is that because you're the only one carrying one of these? If no one else is carrying something awkward, you're not being 'singled out'.
SirTodd 09-05-06, 11:53 AM	...this DM made up a really BS houserule that screws me specifically over (that only seems to effect me). Are you certain this is being applied ONLY to you? Or are you the only one who has a large weapon and uses those skills? Although I am not proficient in the use of a scythe (lvl 1 rog), I have one in my inventory. I do not plan to use it until I am capable... but the DM housrules that I take huge penalties on tons of skills.... like hide, move silently, sleight of hand, balance, swim, etc... based on how large the weapon is, and because I am nonprof. If this weapon is stored on your person, your non-prof should have NOTHING to do with your skill use. And while a GM is free to make a house ruling based on the size of a weapon in reguard to skill penalties. It should be applied to everyone who has a large weapon and only to skills that make sense. I fail to see how Sleight of Hand can be affected by something you aren't holding or wearing on your hands/arms. In fact based on her logic I would demand a bonus to that skill based on the fact that it is a natural distraction to have a huge weapon strapped to your back. They would unconciously look at the big thing giving you opportunity to palm objects without much effort. After all they can't help but look at it when your slipping behind trees and bushes. I tried to explain to the person that weapons don't come with a check penalty, but she refuses to take back the call. What should I do? If after coming to her again with the various points discussed in this thread by various posters, she still refuses to alter her ruling. Then you have a problem GM. Some people just can't admit their own mistakes. You will only have limited options however. First, get the support of the other players. If most of a GMs players start supporting a repeal of her ruling she may back down on sheer peer pressure alone (and it will illustrate how wrong she is by making it more than her versus you). Alternately simply remake your character without the scythe. It is perfectly fair for you to swap out any feats or character choices attached to the use of that Scythe. She is the one who changed the game mid adventure. So it is fair to alter your sheet mid adventure based on her ruling. Lastly if none of the above works, vote with your feet. In other words, leave the game and find or start a new one. Feel free to take as many other players with you as you can. Sure the GM will be bitter with you. But she may learn from her mistakes and become a better GM later if her game colapses over her bad ruling.
LCD2YOU 09-05-06, 12:16 PM	When you go to your DM for "clarification", don't be combative. If you say: "Hey moron, why do I get the penalty when nobody else is getting screwed over? Is it that you just don't like me or something?" well, expect to be shutdown. If you say instead, "Hey <insert DM's name here>, I have a rules clarification question for you. Is the penalty I have for the Scythe because it is a big weapon or because it is big and awkward or what? So, if I take say a greatsword on my back, I won't have the same problem?" Just an idea. Remember, there is a difference between a 2-handed sword and a Scythe. Large scythes can be 5' to 7' in length and have a 2' to 3' blades. That is not a "streamlined item".
Aeromus 09-05-06, 12:25 PM	Have an other party member carry for that thing for you. Also, tell your DM to read the ****ing rules. She didn't make the ****ing game up and unless she knows how THIS SYSTEM works and WHY IT WORKS THE WAY IT DOES, she should have no reason to change the rules b/c she doesn't like the way it works. I really hate a game master who doesn't actually bother to read the rules of the system that they're playing. I'm guesing that your DM played Advanced DnD, and thus is used to a rule system that allowed for stupid and impossible things, while at the same time not allowing things that are perfectly possible. Uhm, the DM is a Arbitrator. She decided that strapping a scythe to ones back is encumbering. 3.5 DnD has a rule for encumbrence, it's called "Max Weight" She's well within her rights to call him, medium/heavy due to the awkwardsness of what he's strapped to his back. Those weight classes gives a penalty to all the stuff he's complaining about. The weight of the Scythe gives a 2.45 penalty to swim alone. {WizO_Cat: Ok, let's keep it polite.} Table: Carrying Loads –—— Speed —–— Load Max Dex Check Penalty (30 ft.) (20 ft.) Run Medium +3 –3 20 ft. 15 ft. x4 Heavy +1 –6 20 ft. 15 ft. x3 Armor and Encumbrance for Other Base Speeds The table below provides reduced speed figures for all base speeds from 20 feet to 100 feet (in 10-foot increments). Base Speed Reduced Speed Base Speed Reduced Speed 20 ft. 15 ft. 70 ft. 50 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. 80 ft. 55 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft. 90 ft. 60 ft. 50 ft. 35 ft. 100 ft. 70 ft. 60 ft. 40 ft.
DarkNick 09-05-06, 03:26 PM	My thoughts are that the DM just does not like the scythe being used as a weapon, and I admit that it seems a bit silly to me though you may have some good reasons. Why a scythe anyway? What sort of rogue walks around with such a large farming implement strapped to their back? Is it really something worth fighting for? Maybe you could downsize and go with a sickle ;) My advise is to ask what you can do to reduce these penalties. If all it takes is a proficiency then don't carry it until you do. You could be stubborn and use it but in the long run your DM is just going to make it difficult for you, might just be one of her pet hates (just like I as a DM have an irrational hatred of Centaurs and have made them unatural abominations in all my games).
Aeromus 09-05-06, 05:43 PM	There's no way to sheath a scythe. Anyone using it as a weapon would hand carry it, and you know it. Ruling a player has encumbrence for strapping it to ones back is perfectly legitimate.
Chrono Nexus 09-05-06, 05:45 PM	:bump:
Aeromus 09-05-06, 06:03 PM	Who's ranting now? Anyway, I downsized to sickle.... you need to clean up your posts.... you sound like a child (what are you, like, 15?). Do you know what a hypocrit even is? Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practice. I haven't actually shown any morals in my posts, you are misusing the word. Besides, the raw for encumbrance is calculated by how much you carry, not the shape of the object. The DM's ruling is not core, it is a houserule. And- a -5 penalty on most rogue related skills is hardly subtle when I'm playing a rogue. This houserule specifically screws me over, since the party fighter won't be attempting to hide or balance very often. I didn't post this for pity or for BS, I came here for advise. I got that advise.... and, of course, some prepubescent moron starts telling me my post is poorly constructed... Why don't you try finding a more healthy outlet for your anger, like martial arts or cutting, instead of wasting my Time. Encumbrenceis being encumbered. Any DM would say something is encumbered. If you're character could carry a car, and was medium, would you cry and say you aren't encumbered? Ever move? Carry a large, but not heavy box? Ever strap a scythe to your back, and sneak around? Most likely no. You clame she is making the rule to screw you. She applied the negative to all skills (as far as your post states anyway) that an armor check penalty or encumbrence would apply to. I would assume if anyone else strapped a scythe to thier back they'd get the same treatment. The negative she's applying "seems" to have nothing to do with proficiency. The DM is well within thier rights to make ANY house-rule they want. You have no arguement unless the rule doesn't apply to everyone. And, you don't know whether it applies to everyone or not, because you're the only one doing the said action. And, I'll point out your other ignorant posts as well. The one about drops of rain doing 20d6 damage. SRD states: FALLING OBJECTS Just as characters take damage when they fall more than 10 feet, so too do they take damage when they are hit by falling objects. Objects that fall upon characters deal damage based on their weight and the distance they have fallen. For each 200 pounds of an object’s weight, the object deals 1d6 points of damage, provided it falls at least 10 feet. Distance also comes into play, adding an additional 1d6 points of damage for every 10-foot increment it falls beyond the first (to a maximum of 20d6 points of damage). Objects smaller than 200 pounds also deal damage when dropped, but they must fall farther to deal the same damage. Use Table: Damage from Falling Objects to see how far an object of a given weight must drop to deal 1d6 points of damage. Table: Damage from Falling Objects Object Weight Falling Distance 200–101 lb. 20 ft. 100–51 lb. 30 ft. 50–31 lb. 40 ft. 30–11 lb. 50 ft. 10–6 lb. 60 ft. 5–1 lb. 70 ft. For each additional increment an object falls, it deals an additional 1d6 points of damage. Objects weighing less than 1 pound do not deal damage to those they land upon, no matter how far they have fallen. Since a drop of water doesn't weigh 1 pound it does no damage.
LordHawkeye 09-05-06, 06:11 PM	OMG encumbrence rules for 3.5!!!! Quoted from the SRD!! RaW.. OMG the stuff you apparently know, but have no clue about!!! As already stated, scythe doesn't weigh nearly enough to encumber according to those rules so you proved absolutely nothing there. DM sounds like he's falling into the realism trap. Trying to make things as realistic as possible. Problem: This is DnD. DnD is NOT realistic and if players wanted realism, they wouldn't be role playing. Savy?
OravennasBrother 09-05-06, 06:31 PM	Why on earth would a rogue carry a scythe - it's a farm tool, not a weapon. Sure D&D 3.X makes it SEEM like a weapon, but it is NOT. IF the Scythe (with a x4 crit multiplier) is to maximize damage on a CDG - then the word of the day is metagaming. I tend to deter metagaming on that level, so I suppose the DM in question might do the same; "Ooh someone wants to carry a Scythe, time to convince them it's a bad idea." Thus there is no escape save to drop the Farm Tool masquerading as a weapon and take a different approach to that campaign. Or drop the campaign and play with a DM who tolerates or encourages that style of play.
Pidmon 09-05-06, 09:13 PM	It is possible that it's a part of that rogue's backstory or character concept. I had a cleric carry a scythe, because she worshipped that pantheon's version of Terry Pratchet's Death. ... Unlikely, but possible.
LCD2YOU 09-05-06, 09:18 PM	Backstories are great. However, if I roll up a new PC who is a follower of Rangaloud, the diety of sound and I have pots and pans all over my body, well, I think you can get my point.
Salla 09-06-06, 01:16 AM	Why on earth would a rogue carry a scythe - it's a farm tool, not a weapon. Sure D&D 3.X makes it SEEM like a weapon, but it is NOT. IF the Scythe (with a x4 crit multiplier) is to maximize damage on a CDG - then the word of the day is metagaming. I tend to deter metagaming on that level, so I suppose the DM in question might do the same; "Ooh someone wants to carry a Scythe, time to convince them it's a bad idea." Thus there is no escape save to drop the Farm Tool masquerading as a weapon and take a different approach to that campaign. Or drop the campaign and play with a DM who tolerates or encourages that style of play. I wouldn't think that the knowledge that the incredibly sharp, incredibly pointed, well-leveraged scythe blade will really **** someone up is metagaming, unless you think that a headsman using an axe instead of a sword is (they specifically used axes BECAUSE of the way they worked well for decapitating). This GM is full of it.
kelvinaw273 09-06-06, 05:29 AM	DM sounds like he's falling into the realism trap. Trying to make things as realistic as possible. Problem: This is DnD. DnD is NOT realistic and if players wanted realism, they wouldn't be role playing. Savy? That depends upon your DM, period. There is no realism trap in D&D. Grabnted D&D is a heroic game system that plays fast and loose, but some DMs like a 'gritty' relaistic feel to their games and some like a 'high fantasy' you-can-do-anything feel to their games. This is a question of style, not of doing it 'right' or 'wrong'. Now, D&D has encumbrance rules. The DM is perfectly within his rights to claim that an awkward, hard to carry item represents more encumbrance than its weight. This particular character is walking around with a scythe strapped to their backs for no apparently good in-game reason (well, I am guessing so that they will take Exotic Weapon Proficiciency with it at 3rd level and have an uber-critical weapon, but that is meta-game). I'd certainly give the character an encumbrance rating for doing such a dumb thing. This is not 'wrong' although it does penalise a player who wants to map out his advancement several levels in advance irregardless of what he may encounter or what the needs of the party are. Some would argue this is not a bad thing at all, as what the player is doing isn't role-playing, it's power gaming - and as you point out this is a role-playing game.
Roivas 09-06-06, 05:49 AM	I really don't see why this question need be asked, the GM made her call put up or shut up. If you don't like the penalty drop the weapon, if you want to use the scythe, an awsome weapon for certain chracters I might add, keep it. The GM may make any ruling they see fit to make the game suit the style of play they wish to encourage, if the players take severe issue with it they can leave. Why are you already discussin' what's alreay been decided?-Malcom Renolds, Firefly
Moon-Lancer 09-06-06, 07:27 AM	when will people understand, a scith is not a farm too, its a death dealing tool used by mr grim, the reaper of mortal souls. Its not metagameing to know what weapons do. Using a scith is not metagameing. Now if you want a scythe becuse of the x4 only, then thats a problem of not roleplaying, rather then metagame. Its a martial weapon, not simple. I think people on these boards are confusing scythe and scythe. One is a whole load of curved awsome, and the other is a farm tool. lol. This is a d&d scythe http://www.comicartcommunity.com/gallery/details.php?image_id=5712&sessionid=1cc7de87&sessionid=1cc7de87
Aeromus 09-06-06, 08:22 AM	No it isn't. That's a Master Craft scythe, or magic scythe or even a specific weapon scythe. A Normal D&D scythe is a tool, read PHB, there's even a picture of it.
starfire311 09-06-06, 08:50 AM	when will people understand, a scith is not a farm too, its a death dealing tool used by mr grim, the reaper of mortal souls. Its not metagameing to know what weapons do. Using a scith is not metagameing. Now if you want a scythe becuse of the x4 only, then thats a problem of not roleplaying, rather then metagame. Its a martial weapon, not simple. I think people on these boards are confusing scythe and scythe. One is a whole load of curved awsome, and the other is a farm tool. lol. This is a d&d scythe http://www.comicartcommunity.com/gallery/details.php?image_id=5712&sessionid=1cc7de87&sessionid=1cc7de87 nice scythe, and even if that were the kind of scythe we are talking about, I don't see the chick in the pic strapping it to her back and then being all stealthy
Moon-Lancer 09-06-06, 11:54 AM	nice scythe, and even if that were the kind of scythe we are talking about, I don't see the chick in the pic strapping it to her back and then being all stealthy I just assumed it was to silly too argue:thinks: No it isn't. That's a Master Craft scythe, or magic scythe or even a specific weapon scythe. A Normal D&D scythe is a tool, read PHB, there's even a picture of it. your talking about phb artests... hahahah. sorry. but the art in that book is just so... lacking. in fact thier is no picture of what masterwork looks like. A farm scythe has wooden handles on the side to reap wheet, but a combat scythe doesent. Its a stick with a curved blade (usaly). I am speaking of the many shows that have charicters with scythes, after all they do set a presadence. anyway, regardless of how we view a scythe, i can see if you have straps on your back, you can strap the handle down. It would be as awkword as any other weapon on ones back. It wouldent have a conventinal sheath, but thats why you keep the blade clothed with thick canvis with a quick pull tie to unsheath as a move action.
OravennasBrother 09-06-06, 12:00 PM	I wouldn't think that the knowledge that the incredibly sharp, incredibly pointed, well-leveraged scythe blade will really **** someone up is metagaming, unless you think that a headsman using an axe instead of a sword is (they specifically used axes BECAUSE of the way they worked well for decapitating). This GM is full of it. NEWS FLASH THIS JUST IN A Scythe IRL is too unwieldy to make an efficient weapon. Peasants sometimes used them as they were as close to a weapon as they were allowed to own. Anyone with a purpose made weapon - Sword, Axe, Spear etc. would see the scythe as nothing more than a farmer's tool. Note that an Axe was frequently used in actual combat, unlike the Scythe, and I would have no problem with someone who carried an axe. and finaly FYI - when Richard Cour d'Leon had several thousand captives executed near Acre, his headsman used a Sword.
Brotha_T 09-06-06, 12:05 PM	Your DM has a point, of sorts. Try strapping a large object on your back and try to go through underbrush, etc. Any check penalty is actually based on weight vs CC, but as long as the rule is applied evenly, ie, everyone with large weapons or large objects strapped to their backs take the penalty, then there really is not much you can do. It doesn't matter how large the weapon is. Weapons and carried objects (aside from shields) do not have check penalties. End of story. However, everyone has their own house rules, and as the DM if she says so, then you can't really argue. Logically, she has a leg to stand on, even if it is unsupported by the game rules. So, if she is the type of DM that sticks to the rules as much as possible, appeal to that by showing her the relevant pages in the PHb. If she treats the rules more as guidelines, then she won't be sympathetic, although we generally are from the sound of it. If she still won't budge, invest in a bag of holding and keep it in there. Good luck.
Mufflon 09-06-06, 12:27 PM	That depends upon your DM, period. There is no realism trap in D&D. Granted D&D is a heroic game system that plays fast and loose, but some DMs like a 'gritty' realistic feel to their games and some like a 'high fantasy' you-can-do-anything feel to their games. This is a question of style, not of doing it 'right' or 'wrong'. If a GM wishes to have a more realistic game then he/she would do better to go down to the local gaming store and buy a system geared towards realism, since D&D clearly is not. This is simply because it would require a LOT more work than handing out small penalties for certain weapons. This particular character is walking around with a scythe strapped to their backs for no apparently good in-game reason... Since the OP have disclosed none of his in-game reasons for choosing to carry a scythe I am curios as to you have come by this information. I'd certainly give the character an encumbrance rating for doing such a dumb thing. You give out penalties for players doing "dumb" things!?! I quite frankly find that notion to be completely absurd. Especially since the OP might very well have a role-playing reason to do this "dumb" thing, do you also advocate giving out penalties to players who choose suboptimal character builds instead of power gaming? This is not 'wrong' although it does penalise a player who wants to map out his advancement several levels in advance irregardless of what he may encounter or what the needs of the party are. Some would argue this is not a bad thing at all, as what the player is doing isn't role-playing, it's power gaming. I most heartily disagree. Why would planning out your character advancement beforehand be a trademark of power gaming? I fancy myself as quite the role-player and I often have a set purpose for my characters. Indeed if the player adhered solely to "what he may encounter or what the needs of the party are" I would see that as a clearer sign of power gaming. To choose not to be the very best, mechanically, can hardly be called power gaming. I really don't see why this question need be asked, the GM made her call put up or shut up. If you don't like the penalty drop the weapon, if you want to use the scythe, an awesome weapon for certain characters I might add, keep it. The GM may make any ruling they see fit to make the game suit the style of play they wish to encourage, if the players take severe issue with it they can leave. Since putting up and shutting up in this case clearly mean the same, enduring a disliked rule, the choice you are presenting truly isn't a choice at all. And as a DM if find the idea that the DM is some form of all-powerful Tyrant and that any disagreement with his/her word is the greatest heresy to be completely horrifying. Any DM that adds a rule with which the Player(s) are not comfortable is clearly doing something wrong. As a DM I value the feedback I get on my house rules, and I would be very upset if a player would leave because of one of them. A Normal D&D scythe is a tool, read PHB, there's even a picture of it. If the pictures of weapons in the PHB were used as accurate depictions in conjunction with some homebrew weapon-realism most of them would be completely unusable. As for the claims of the scythe being solely a farming implement they are simply false. There are many recordede instances throughout history where scythes, of a type which were made with battle in mind, were used in warefare.
Feriin 09-06-06, 02:58 PM	NEWS FLASH THIS JUST IN A Scythe IRL is too unwieldy to make an efficient weapon. Peasants sometimes used them as they were as close to a weapon as they were allowed to own. Anyone with a purpose made weapon - Sword, Axe, Spear etc. would see the scythe as nothing more than a farmer's tool. Note that an Axe was frequently used in actual combat, unlike the Scythe, and I would have no problem with someone who carried an axe. and finaly FYI - when Richard Cour d'Leon had several thousand captives executed near Acre, his headsman used a Sword. Have you ever picked up a Scythe before and actually tried to use one as a weapon? I have, trust me they can be quite effective. Granted if I had a choice I would probably pick up a sword first.
Righter8 09-06-06, 05:21 PM	A Normal D&D scythe is a tool, read PHB, there's even a picture of it. So, if its NOT a weapon, why is it in the weapon section of the PHB? Should it be in the "Adventuring Gear" section? If so, then sickle and pick (all varities of course) should be there too, as these are, traditionally, farm and mining tools, respectively. Regarding encumbrance: My PHB says: "Encumbrance comes in 2 parts: encumbrance by armor and encumbrance by total weight." I don't see anywhere where its says "size of objects carried". So, let's assume a scythe strapped to the back, as per this DM. is in fact an encumbering situation. My only concern would be what other items would bestow this same penalty? Bows? Spears? Shields in a stowed position? Not a backpack full of gear and treasure I'm sure? THAT would be my main concern. What constitutes this penalty? OP- Hold your DM to her houserules and core rules rulings. When her NPC rouge sneaks up on you with a longspear, call her on it.
Aeromus 09-06-06, 05:23 PM	Have you ever picked up a Scythe before and actually tried to use one as a weapon? I have, trust me they can be quite effective. Granted if I had a choice I would probably pick up a sword first. No. But, I've used one as a tool on the farm hundreds of times. I've swung one around "pretending" to kill stormtroopers in my youth however, and let me assure you, it was harder to imagine using the scythe as a weapon then it was a stick as a sword. It's near 6/7 feet long. The haft is crooked. It has a billy club like handle that you pretty much HAVE to hold to even swing it. The scythe was "never" built for using as a weapon. Occaisionally a peasent could kill someone with a single swing due to the blades length and the fact that dying person was galloping full speed past them on a horse. Hence the x4 crit multiplyer. Strap that crooked hafted long bladed tool to your back, and see how well you perform dex related tasks.
Aegeu 09-06-06, 06:47 PM	1. Most of the "farm" weapons (the pick, for example) say that they have been specifically hardened and sharpened for war. It stands to reason that they wouldn't have giant handles and other things that are only of use to farmers. Second, the weight of an item probably includes the bulkiness, hence the reason an iron pot costs the same as a pound of iron but weighs 1.5 lbs. Thirdly, there are ways around the bulkiness. It could be a folding scythe or something. 2. There is a much bigger issue than the weight of the scythe. It's the fact that the DM is only applying it to the rogue, and also, the OP says it's because they're not proficient. Since when were items portable for fighters but not rogues? Since when did being nonproficient keep you from carrying the item? It reminds me of a post in the ridiculous house rules thread. Some DM said that if you touched a weapone you weren't proficient with, you took 2d6 damage. This is pretty similar. Bottom line, this is a loony rule and a way of punishing your character. </rant>
LCD2YOU 09-06-06, 07:05 PM	1. Most of the "farm" weapons (the pick, for example) say that they have been specifically hardened and sharpened for war. It stands to reason that they wouldn't have giant handles and other things that are only of use to farmers. Second, the weight of an item probably includes the bulkiness, hence the reason an iron pot costs the same as a pound of iron but weighs 1.5 lbs. Thirdly, there are ways around the bulkiness. It could be a folding scythe or something. 2. There is a much bigger issue than the weight of the scythe. It's the fact that the DM is only applying it to the rogue, and also, the OP says it's because they're not proficient. Since when were items portable for fighters but not rogues? Since when did being nonproficient keep you from carrying the item? It reminds me of a post in the ridiculous house rules thread. Some DM said that if you touched a weapone you weren't proficient with, you took 2d6 damage. This is pretty similar. Bottom line, this is a loony rule and a way of punishing your character. </rant>First we don't know that the DM of the OP is just doing it to them. Second having an unweildy object such as a Scythe on one's back will not be easy. Third, I kinda like it. But it would apply to everyone, whether or not they are proficient with it.
Sulaco 09-06-06, 09:34 PM	Both the weight and bulkiness or "awkwardness" or an item are accounted for in its listed encumbrance. D&D makes no distinction of differentiation between where or how an item is carried and any changes to that listed value. A five-pound sword, for example, is a five-pound whether it is worn on the hip, slung on the back, carried in hand, shoved under the belt, of tucked away in a pack. In reality strapping a scythe to your back is a silly idea, in D&D it is perfectly acceptable. Yes it may be logical that a scythe on the back hampers one, but D&D often sacrifices logic for playability. Like any house rule this one, too, must stand up to "The Law": Sulaco's Law of House Rules Does this house rule make the game more fun? Unless the answer is a resounding "yes!" then the rule does not belong This rule certainly does not seem to be in any way enhancing the fun or enjoyment of the game. Indeed, it seems to be hindering it. IMO it has to go.
dbrouill 09-06-06, 11:06 PM	Reading through the posts everyone seems to be going back and forth about armor check penalties, encumbrance penalties, realism vs. fantasy, house-rules, etc. This whole thing could be settled without any of those just by saying that having a scythe (or any other large, rigid object) strapped to your back gives you a -2 circumstance penalty to certain skills (such as Hide). It's right there in the Player's Handbook on page 64 as a way to give a DM leeway in regards to skill checks when they feel there is some special condition. Taken to an extreme circumstance, try this example. One of my players has a barbarian with a 24 strength. By the rules he could probably pick up a 20 ft. tall pile of bright pink cotton that wouldn't have any impact on his encumbrance. Now if he were to carry that mountain of cotton and try to hide behind a small bush, I think most DM's would apply a rather substantial penalty. All this despite the fact that there's no rule about hiding with a giant pink mound of cotton. A scythe certainly isn't that bad, but havnig one strapped to your back would be awkward and could reasonably apply penalties.
SirTodd 09-07-06, 09:04 AM	I think I saw the OP mention a -5 penalty? If so thats WAY too harsh. And with or without the little extra handle it should be easier to lug around in your pack than a longspear, polearm, pike, or tower shield. Yet the GM specifically only targeted the scythe. I think most will agree we are not hearing the whole story. The whole timing of the creation of that houserule is also suspect. Why wait till you are in the middle of the adventure to strap harsh penalties to something specific. But really, this smacks of targeting one player with a houserule. The sure sign that this GM is a control freak. For some reason, out of game, the GM wants the rogue to only use weapons she feels are appropriate. And picked mid-adventure to punish a player for what she considers a poor choice in gear. The proper time for such a goofy houserule would have been before the game ever started. She could have paused character creation and made the houserule at that time with little or no disruption. It was presumably something he started with in the hopes of getting to use at a latter date. It is clear this is a targeted ruling by both it's timing, the ridiculous harshness of the penalty, and the specificness of it's target. Bad GMing. I am in full agreement with Sulaco's Law of Houserules. This houserule will only lead to arguement and was specifically targeted to ruin someones fun. Why not get the GM on here to explain this mess?
LCD2YOU 09-07-06, 09:32 AM	Well, I have problems with Sulaco's "Fun" rule. What might be fun for some is foolish for others. Maybe I play with a group that is a little more serious, but like the guy who can carry 20' stack of cotton, if it makes sense to have a consequence for it, then have the consequence. A player can try to do anything they want. The qualifier here is "try".
OravennasBrother 09-07-06, 10:12 AM	As for the claims of the scythe being solely a farming implement they are simply false. There are many recordede instances throughout history where scythes, of a type which were made with battle in mind, were used in warefare. Except for the Scythe Chariots (as late as Arbels ~333 BCE) and a few Bronze age battles, I've only seen records of scythes carried by peasants with no "purpose" made weapons available. Rather like the poster who says they could use a scythe but prefer a sword - EXACTLY MY POINT. A scythe is NOT a weapon by preference - it made it to the weapon table in fashion similar to the Spiked chain; someone (I hesitate to use the term 'fanboi') liked the concept and forced it through. It is barely possible that the scythe, lacking any medieval military equivalent (Military Pick or the English Billhook for example), was added for completeness; the 'good' attributes (x4 crit multiplier) indicate the first possibility is more plausible. So concluding that there is no IC reason to carry a scythe for a weapon (as opposed to a itenerant laborer who carries a Scythe as a tool of his trade) seems well justified.
Sulaco 09-07-06, 10:17 AM	Well, I have problems with Sulaco's "Fun" rule. What might be fun for some is foolish for others. Which is why they are called "house rules," cos they vary from house to house, game to game, and group to group. I didn't think it was actually necessary to write "Does this house rule that you are contemplating for inclusion in this particular game or with this particular group make this particular game more fun for this particular group? Unless the answer is a resounding "yes!" for this particular group then the rule does not belong in this particular game."
LCD2YOU 09-07-06, 10:25 AM	No problem Sulaco. No need to tell me, again, what is and what is not a house rule. :P
Sulaco 09-07-06, 11:26 AM	Except for the Scythe Chariots (as late as Arbels ~333 BCE) and a few Bronze age battles, I've only seen records of scythes carried by peasants with no "purpose" made weapons available. Rather like the poster who says they could use a scythe but prefer a sword - EXACTLY MY POINT. A scythe is NOT a weapon by preference - it made it to the weapon table in fashion similar to the Spiked chain; someone (I hesitate to use the term 'fanboi') liked the concept and forced it through. It is barely possible that the scythe, lacking any medieval military equivalent (Military Pick or the English Billhook for example), was added for completeness; the 'good' attributes (x4 crit multiplier) indicate the first possibility is more plausible. So concluding that there is no IC reason to carry a scythe for a weapon (as opposed to a itenerant laborer who carries a Scythe as a tool of his trade) seems well justified. This is D&D, not historical Earth. There is no reason whatsoever that it be the same, or even similar, in terms of weapon development. At one point I bet people thought that whacking someone in the head with an agrarian tool like a rice-flail was a pretty damned daft idea, too. After all, with all the other options available why bother using a simple farmer's tool as a weapon? In D&D the scythe is listed as a weapon. It is therefore clear that it is assumed to be a weaponized version of a scythe, much like hte hammers and picks that also appear on the list. Apart from that, dbrouill pointed out that there is a penalty for things like this in the RAW. For the sake of fairness the DM should abide by that cos there really is no good reason not too. Strapping a scythe to your back is a -2 to penalty to certian skill checks. Done. The punitive -5 tossed in by this DM seems designed more to "discourage" this PC from carrying the item, which is IMO pretty much the worst way to handle it.
LordHawkeye 09-07-06, 02:53 PM	To all the naysayers about the scythe as a weapon, go back and read the weapon description. "Resembles the farming tool of the same name but has been strengthened and BALANCED for combat" Savy now?
OravennasBrother 09-07-06, 03:12 PM	This is D&D, not historical Earth. There is no reason whatsoever that it be the same, or even similar, in terms of weapon development. At one point I bet people thought that whacking someone in the head with an agrarian tool like a rice-flail was a pretty damned daft idea, too. I imagine most still do think using rice flails (aka nuchuk's to use the popular venacular) unless they are part of a group studying a martial art for competition purposes. The Okinawans used the rice flail because their Japanese overlords would not PERMIT them to carry "real" weapons - like spears or Swords. It does not matter if the game is set on Earth or Oz, unless oyou change the physical reality of the balance on the weapon, the Scythe makes a grossly inferior weapon relative to a sword or Spear. That the RAW permits the Scythe to be used competitively with other weapons proves only that a section of the design team decided to include it (again I hesitae to say it was a 'fanboi' influence as other possibilities, however slim do exist), not that is could EVER be a useful RL weapon.
Righter8 09-07-06, 03:56 PM	Since this is going towards a topic of weapon feasibility,can someone explain to me how a Siangham works? It looks like an arrow with a handle to me.
Aeromus 09-07-06, 04:17 PM	So, if its NOT a weapon, why is it in the weapon section of the PHB? Should it be in the "Adventuring Gear" section? If so, then sickle and pick (all varities of course) should be there too, as these are, traditionally, farm and mining tools, respectively. Regarding encumbrance: My PHB says: "Encumbrance comes in 2 parts: encumbrance by armor and encumbrance by total weight." I don't see anywhere where its says "size of objects carried". So, let's assume a scythe strapped to the back, as per this DM. is in fact an encumbering situation. My only concern would be what other items would bestow this same penalty? Bows? Spears? Shields in a stowed position? Not a backpack full of gear and treasure I'm sure? THAT would be my main concern. What constitutes this penalty? OP- Hold your DM to her houserules and core rules rulings. When her NPC rouge sneaks up on you with a longspear, call her on it. It's listed as a martial weapon due to the difficulty of learning it. A Peasent can't even start with combat proficiency in the damn thing. A scythe is NOT a weapon. It doubled as one for poor peasents. Much like the pitch fork, that amazingly is NOT listed even though it makes more sense.
Righter8 09-07-06, 04:46 PM	Much like the pitch fork, that amazingly is NOT listed even though it makes more sense. Actually from the picture, which you base some of your arguments on, I'd say the trident looks suspiciously like a pitchfork.:P
dbrouill 09-07-06, 04:56 PM	I think I saw the OP mention a -5 penalty? If so thats WAY too harsh. Rereading the original post, the op was very vague and just said "huge penalties", they never mentioned a specific number (such as -5). I do agree with you that -5 would probably be to harsh, but we need more info. And with or without the little extra handle it should be easier to lug around in your pack than a longspear, polearm, pike, or tower shield. Yet the GM specifically only targeted the scythe. I also think that the little extra handle isn't the problem, it's probably more the seven foot rigid and unbendable main shaft with the three foot long blade that extends perpendicular to it. I think most will agree we are not hearing the whole story. The whole timing of the creation of that houserule is also suspect. Why wait till you are in the middle of the adventure to strap harsh penalties to something specific. But really, this smacks of targeting one player with a houserule. The sure sign that this GM is a control freak. For some reason, out of game, the GM wants the rogue to only use weapons she feels are appropriate. And picked mid-adventure to punish a player for what she considers a poor choice in gear. The proper time for such a goofy houserule would have been before the game ever started. She could have paused character creation and made the houserule at that time with little or no disruption. It was presumably something he started with in the hopes of getting to use at a latter date. It is clear this is a targeted ruling by both it's timing, the ridiculous harshness of the penalty, and the specificness of it's target. Bad GMing. I also don't think we can say that this was sprung on the original poster in the middle of an adventure without more info. After all, their character is still first level. It would seem to me that this penalty was introduced pretty early and that the DM didn't wait until the middle of an adventure. The poster never says when the DM introduced the rule - it may have been during character creation or it may have been during the game (we just don't know). We also can't rule on the DM's motives with only the injured party's testimony. If you make a ruling that only negatively affects one player it's not necessarily you're trying to target that player, it just might mean that you've made a valid ruling that only applies to one player (I'm guessing the other players aren't rogues trying to hide and sneak around with scythes on their back). I am in full agreement with Sulaco's Law of Houserules. This houserule will only lead to arguement and was specifically targeted to ruin someones fun. Why not get the GM on here to explain this mess? I still don't know why we're referring to this as a houserule. It seems to me to be a circumstance penalty to skill checks. The player's handbook specifically references them as a tool (i.e. they're not a houserule) of the DM. This isn't a ruling I would make (since a scythe is a Player's Handbook weapon), but I can see it as a valid interpretation of the rules. Of course, it could be the DM vindictively targeting the player, but we don't have the information to conclude that.
Mufflon 09-07-06, 05:03 PM	Except for the Scythe Chariots (as late as Arbels ~333 BCE) and a few Bronze age battles, I've only seen records of scythes carried by peasants with no "purpose" made weapons available. Rather like the poster who says they could use a scythe but prefer a sword - EXACTLY MY POINT. A scythe is NOT a weapon by preference - it made it to the weapon table in fashion similar to the Spiked chain; someone (I hesitate to use the term 'fanboi') liked the concept and forced it through. Then I guess you aren't looking at the right historical records. Though scythes are not frequently used for warefare there are several instaces in history. Since you ballantly discredited my earlier claim I will provide you with and example. During mainly the 18th century the Polish are employed the use of a type of war-scythes for it's bulk force, which was mainly (as was the custom among large armies) made up of conscripted peasants. The most notable battle during which the weapon was employed is probably the battle of Racławice. It should be noted that the modified scythes used by the polish army is not the kind depicted in the PHB, but instead had more in common with the halbeard. So concluding that there is no IC reason to carry a scythe for a weapon (as opposed to a itenerant laborer who carries a Scythe as a tool of his trade) seems well justified. Aren't you jumping to your conclusions a little to fast? Having read through this thread I have seen no indication that the OP did not have an IC reason to wield a scythe. Indeed I am slighly puzzeled at your decition to follow your historical motivations by this "conclusion" since IC reasons in a fantasy world really shouldn't have that much to do with real-world history.
Mufflon 09-07-06, 05:22 PM	It does not matter if the game is set on Earth or Oz, unless oyou change the physical reality of the balance on the weapon, the Scythe makes a grossly inferior weapon relative to a sword or Spear. That the RAW permits the Scythe to be used competitively with other weapons proves only that a section of the design team decided to include it (again I hesitae to say it was a 'fanboi' influence as other possibilities, however slim do exist), not that is could EVER be a useful RL weapon. As I mention in the post above the scythe HAS been used as a military weapon in real life. I'd say thats pretty solid proof that it could be a useful RL weapon, wouldn't you? As for being, in real life, inferior to a sword, that is really just a bad comparison because they are two very different weapon types. The sword, having a relativly high production cost and requiring slightly more skill to weild was rarely carried by conscripted soldiers. Comparing it to the spear, though, has much more relevancy. The spear has the advantage of being lighter, and thus not tireing the wielder as much, and it is also faster. The scythe, on the other hand, is heavier and therefore packs more of a punch, there are even recorded instances of scythes cutting through metal helmets. It is also believed to, due to its relative strangeness and power, to have had a psycological inpact on the opponents. Oh and as for changing physical reality it really isn't a very forgien concept in D&D, if you read the rules you will find that they do it all the time.
Mufflon 09-07-06, 05:27 PM	It's listed as a martial weapon due to the difficulty of learning it. A Peasent can't even start with combat proficiency in the damn thing. A scythe is NOT a weapon. It doubled as one for poor peasents. Much like the pitch fork, that amazingly is NOT listed even though it makes more sense. Correction: The scythe commonly employed as an argicultural tool by farmers is not a weapon. The type of modified scythes used in organized warefare were, indeed, weapons. Atleast insofar as thier sole purpose was to kill people with them. They were not wieled in the same way as you would a farming scythe.The pitchfork, on the other hand, has no modified version made for war.
OravennasBrother 09-07-06, 05:43 PM	Then I guess you aren't looking at the right historical records. During mainly the 18th century the Polish are employed the use of a type of war-scythes for it's bulk force, which was mainly (as was the custom among large armies) made up of conscripted peasants. It should be noted that the modified scythes used by the polish army is not the kind depicted in the PHB, but instead had more in common with the halbeard. Uh huh - so Peasant LEVIES Used this Scythe - is that not what I already indicated? But wait THIS Scythe was really a different name for a Halberd. So that is NOT an example of a scythe used for combat, but a Halberd by another name. I still stand by the assertion that carrying a Scythe "as a weapon" smacks of metagaming, and since the OP clearly states that he intends to get EWP Scythe I STRONGLY DOUBT he was carrying it because he had maxxed out "Profession; Farmer" and wanted to carry the "tools of his trade"
chava 09-07-06, 06:29 PM	I still stand by the assertion that carrying a Scythe "as a weapon" smacks of metagaming, and since the OP clearly states that he intends to get EWP Scythe I STRONGLY DOUBT he was carrying it because he had maxxed out "Profession; Farmer" and wanted to carry the "tools of his trade" OK, just a slight defense for the OP. I am in a game where I was carring around a weapon that I didn't have the EWP for the equivalent of 4 character levels. Yes, I did eventually get EWP, but did my DM see this as metagaming? no. Why, because I told my DM that I had an idea for a fighter character who fights with the weapon but when she was a pathetic starting adventurer she hadn't quite got the hang of using the weapon yet. AND I did take the in combat penalties for using it (and managed to avoid hitting myself, or my party members... although I tripped over it quite a few times). Now my character has finally figured out how to use this thing properly so I got the EWP. If your character has a goal to learn to use something as a weapon it makes perfect sense that he/she would carry it around (hell, and use it in combat; hopefully not killing someone they like) so that he/she can practice and eventually learn to use the weapon. That isn't metagaming, it's character motivaion.
OravennasBrother 09-07-06, 06:51 PM	OK, just a slight defense for the OP. The OP states He carries a Scythe He does not use the Scythe for combat He intends to get the Proficinecy at a later level. SO I don't see him along the same lines as a Fighter using an exotic weapon to provide an IC reason to pick up the proficiency.
Righter8 09-07-06, 07:35 PM	Anyway off topic: For the History Professors out there - Is it true that weapons like a longsword were horribly ineffective against most armors and that the weapon of choice was the morningstar and flails? Discuss.
Endarrion 09-07-06, 07:43 PM	I kept saying to myself, "No, I won't indulge this thread. I won't." But, darn it, I can't help myself. As for scythes not being weapons, let's go ahead and take it a step further. Plate armor. First created for limited use on the battlefield (most commonly used as ceremonial armor). It was too expensive for average troops to use. The average foot soldier wore chain armor or brigandine or leather. So. For the sake of "realism" (haha) let's price the armor at around, oh, 5,000 gp. Now, let's go ahead and increase the masterwork cost of it to 7,500 gp. Let's keep the realism going. You want to use plate armor with the cost listed in the PHB? Fine. Guns are now in use. Everywhere. Single-shot muskets and cannons. For every army. Because, when plate armor was finally stream-lined for use by most soldiers, it was in response to bullets and guns. Reality bites. That's why we play D&D (a fantasy game, shh). God forbid someone wants to use a scythe because "it's cool." I mean, D&D isn't fun! Who ever said that? You can't just go making any character you want just because it's "cool" or "fun," you twit! To all those who said the scythe shouldn't be allowed or isn't a weapon, let me ask you: Were you able to write all those responses with a straight face?
Chrono Nexus 09-08-06, 08:47 AM	I still stand by the assertion that carrying a Scythe "as a weapon" smacks of metagaming, and since the OP clearly states that he intends to get EWP Scythe I STRONGLY DOUBT he was carrying it because he had maxxed out "Profession; Farmer" and wanted to carry the "tools of his trade" My character's name was Thanan (after Thanatos, meaning death). He carried the scythe for flavor more than anything else. By the way... scythes are a martial weapon.
starfire311 09-08-06, 08:58 AM	Plate armor. First created for limited use on the battlefield (most commonly used as ceremonial armor). It was too expensive for average troops to use. The average foot soldier wore chain armor or brigandine or leather. So. For the sake of "realism" (haha) let's price the armor at around, oh, 5,000 gp. Now, let's go ahead and increase the masterwork cost of it to 7,500 gp. why is this more realistic, 1500gp is way out of the price range of almost all people in a game. Heck even today 1500gp is worth almost $700,000 not very many people can afford to blow the cash on that.
Sulaco 09-08-06, 09:26 AM	I imagine most still do think using rice flails (aka nuchuk's to use the popular venacular) unless they are part of a group studying a martial art for competition purposes. The Okinawans used the rice flail because their Japanese overlords would not PERMIT them to carry "real" weapons - like spears or Swords. Yes, and in a given D&D world it is entirely possible that a similar situation exited but rather than rice flails the subjugated population had the scythe. It does not matter if the game is set on Earth or Oz, unless you change the physical reality of the balance on the weapon, the Scythe makes a grossly inferior weapon relative to a sword or Spear. That the RAW permits the Scythe to be used competitively with other weapons proves only that a section of the design team decided to include it (again I hesitae to say it was a 'fanboi' influence as other possibilities, however slim do exist), not that is could EVER be a useful RL weapon. This is also the reason that, like many other weapons, it is relegated to niche status. Were it equally effective or superior to the sword then every army would be running around with them, wouldn't they? Ultimately, though, this doesn't mattter. D&D is not real life and it has bog-all to do with this discussion. Realisitc or not, the scythe is a D&D weapon and rules for strapping such items to you back already exist. The DM has chosen to ignore these rules apparently to punish a player. That is just bad DMing.
OravennasBrother 09-08-06, 09:43 AM	By the way... scythes are a martial weapon. I distincly remember in my first post I stated something to the effect that a Scythe was only a weapon in D&D because it had been placed among weapons instead of tools (where it belongs) by the designers as a personal call. I also distinctly stated that I would refrain from concluding that the designers were 'fanbois' even though that seems likely from some of the treatment which different sorts of gera receives. Finally - the OP does not exist in a vacuum. The Dm and other players ALSO have a right to FUN. If the inanity of using a scythe as a weapon is so great that is spoils THEIR FUN, then it seems perfectly reasonable for the DM to make calls to "discourage" the use of the scythe for hacking anything beyond hay. Well with one or two exceptions...... There once was a prince from Calais, Who tortured his peasants each day, Until they turned fickle, And hacked with a sickle, His neck instead of the hay. Really if you want to use a scythe in Rhyme then I won't object.
Sulaco 09-08-06, 09:52 AM	why is this more realistic, 1500gp is way out of the price range of almost all people in a game. Heck even today 1500gp is worth almost $700,000 not very many people can afford to blow the cash on that. Cos plate armor was not just out of the reach of most people, the cost was beyond their comprehension. The $700,000 figure you quote sounds high, but it is only what you pay for a largish house in a decent neighbourhood nowadays. A suit of plate armor cost about as much as, and held the equivalent status of, a private jet. If you want realistic then forget 1,500gp; 15,000gp is more like it. Again, though, this is all real life history and has nothing to do with D&D.
Sulaco 09-08-06, 09:56 AM	Finally - the OP does not exist in a vacuum. The Dm and other players ALSO have a right to FUN. If the inanity of using a scythe as a weapon is so great that is spoils THEIR FUN, then it seems perfectly reasonable for the DM to make calls to "discourage" the use of the scythe for hacking anything beyond hay. Any player whose fun is spoiled cos someone else's PC uses a scythe then that player is, not to put to fine a point on it, a fracking moron. IMO of course.
Mufflon 09-08-06, 10:26 AM	Uh huh - so Peasant LEVIES Used this Scythe - is that not what I already indicated? But wait THIS Scythe was really a different name for a Halberd. So that is NOT an example of a scythe used for combat, but a Halberd by another name. You stated in your earlier post that scythes had only been used in combat by peasants when no "purpose" made weapons was available. That statement was incorrect. The scythes used in warfare were NOT of the type the farmers used to work their fields. They were outfitted with them by military and they were made for the sole purpose of killing people. I define that as a weapon, how would you define it? Secondly: I did at no point in my post claim that the war scythe is just another name for a halberd. I did, though, say that they have several attributes in common, just like a Long sword and a shorts word have several attributes in common. So that is indeed an example of scythe being used for combat. The halberd, by the way, had not yet been invented. still stand by the assertion that carrying a Scythe "as a weapon" smacks of metagaming, and since the OP clearly states that he intends to get EWP Scythe I STRONGLY DOUBT he was carrying it because he had maxed out "Profession; Farmer" and wanted to carry the "tools of his trade" It's really not looking good for your imagination if the only IC reason to carry the D&D scythe is that you have Profession: Farmer. Since many have seemed to assume that there can be no IC reason for a rogue to carry a scythe I am going to prove you wrong, by coming up with one. Since the OP has disclosed the name of his character I hop he won’t mind me using it. Thanan was born into a cult of Nerull worshippers. He was fully indoctrinated into their beliefs and wholeheartedly committed to their cause. Showing no small talent in the unseen art he was at an early age selected to a very great honour indeed: He was to become a Death Dealer, an assassin in the service on Nerull who, to honour his patron, makes all his kills with the scythe (which is Nerull's favoured weapon). But Thanan's training was cut short, for the cult was rooted out and slain by rivalling hextorites. Everyone of the Nerull worshipers were killed, all save for Thanan who managed to hide from the raiders. He now wanders the world with only two goals on his mind: To complete his Death Dealer training and take his vengeance on the hextorites. On his back he carries the scythe given to him by his trainer. Though he is not yet skilled enough to wield it efficiently he practices with it every evening, and yearns for the day it will spill hextorite blood. Considering the short notice I think it's and ok character concept for an antihero. The ones who attacked the Nerull cult should of course be changed to fit the campaign better.
Mufflon 09-08-06, 10:39 AM	Finally - the OP does not exist in a vacuum. The Dm and other players ALSO have a right to FUN. If the inanity of using a scythe as a weapon is so great that is spoils THEIR FUN, then it seems perfectly reasonable for the DM to make calls to "discourage" the use of the scythe for hacking anything beyond hay. If the DM and other players really feel like a rogue with a scythe is ruining their fun, which is unlikely at best, applying off base penalties is entirely the wrong way to go about it. That type in innuendo might have a place in the game, but defiantly not at the gaming-table. The correct approach would simply be to confront the player with the fact that he or she is ruining the game for the others. And if that doesn't work simply ban scythes (as weapons) from the game, because I strongly doubt that anyone (either player or DM) who dislikes someone wielding a scythe as a weapon will be much happier to know that the offender takes SKILL penalties. As for the insanity of using a scythe as a weapon, you have to admit that some of the things used as weapons in D&D are much more insane.
starfire311 09-08-06, 10:42 AM	The $700,000 figure you quote sounds high. good catch it is a bit high well here we go my assumption is based on 20gp = 1lb if this is not the case, then my math is off. so 20gp/lb 1500gp/20gp/lb =75lbs 1 troy ounce = $608.90 as of 10:20 EST 9-8-06 there are about 14.5 troy onces in 1 lb so 75lbs x 14.5 troy ounces/lb x $608.90/troy ounce = $662,178.80 edited some stuff that would derail thread. Sorry. just leaving the math for those that care.
Mufflon 09-08-06, 10:44 AM	Anyway off topic: For the History Professors out there - Is it true that weapons like a longsword were horribly ineffective against most armors and that the weapon of choice was the morningstar and flails? Discuss. Though I am by no means a history professor, and though this question merits it's very own thread I will give you a short answer here. Most medieval, European, swords were sharp enough to shear through chain mail, which was generally what was necessary since heavier armours were very rare.
OravennasBrother 09-08-06, 11:37 AM	Secondly: I did at no point in my post claim that the war scythe is just another name for a halberd. So that is indeed an example of scythe being used for combat. The halberd, by the way, had not yet been invented. During mainly the 18th century the Polish are employed the use of a type of war-scythes for it's bulk force, NEWS FLASH the halberd was in fact developed BEFORE the 18th century. It's really not looking good for your imagination if the only IC reason to carry the D&D scythe is that you have Profession: Farmer. Sure - I can come up with all sorts of reasons, but they all exceed what I want to see in a game "My character used to be friends with Billy and MAndy and I thought the Grimm Reaper was so TOTALLY KEWL That I had to ...." Lots of reasons for "using a Scythe" The major one still comes down to x4 crit multiplier on a CDG. Ask "would the OP want that Scythe so much if it was a 2 handed simple weapon that did 1d8 crx2" What do YOU think the answer might be? I knew a self proclaimed "Role-Player" who was a Paladin of Wee Jas in order to use the Scythe. Had a big list of why the scythe fit his character SOOOOOOOOOO well. Insisted that THIS was the ONE Character for him. I changed the Scythe to x3 CR, and suddenly it was useless. Goodby flaky paladin, hello next character - who wanted to stack Keen and Improved Critical on twin Flaming Burst Kukri. Uh Huh. Too bad his paladin was still alive, ecause if that was the ONE cahracter for him, then as long as it lived he could use that Scythe. Or he could play a character with a more reasonable weapon choice.
Sulaco 09-08-06, 11:42 AM	good catch it is a bit high well here we go The emphasis is on "sounds," not "high" in my post. The point was that whil that may seem an impressive amount of dosh, it is nowhere near as impressive as the cost of an actual suit of plate armor. All coins are 50 to the pound in D&D. Using your figures it is actually only $264,871.50, thus further accentuation what a bargain-basement value D&D plate really is.
SirTodd 09-08-06, 11:48 AM	I find it amusing that the entire arguement of the anti-OP crowd has reduced itself to the opinion that the scythe shouldn't be considered a weapon in D&D. The scythe IS a weapon in D&D. It WAS a weapon historically (although perhaps not a prefered weapon). The people in D&D's R&D pool obviously included the weapon version of the scythe in the core game. And just because a few uninformed but outspoken people want to try to censor it out of the game doesn't mean we should. If the makers of D&D didn't want rogues using large weapons they would have banned it altogether. In fact they didn't attach any sort of penalties whatsoever to a persons choice of weapon beyond non-prof penalties for weilding it. D&D ISN'T real life. If you want to start using size as a penalty for skill use, then you will need a notebook to start making all the mods. Just going off the pictures the scythe is no longer than a quarterstaff. It is a couple feet wide thanks to the blade. But strapped to your back the blade is no wider than your own shoulders are. Most medium sized creatures as well as numerous weapons should be drawing these same penalties if you wanted this so called realism. But the only thing targeted was the scythe of a rogue. Clearly a bad call. Clearly bad GMing. D&D is the way it is because they had to walk that fine line between realism and playablity. This crosses that line and ruins the fun. And as I showed realism toward only one instance is clearly not realism... it is a targeted attack.
starfire311 09-08-06, 11:50 AM	. And all coins are 50 to the pound in D&D. Using your figures it is actually on $264,871.50. Thank you, it was bugging me and didn't have access to check it out right now.
Righter8 09-08-06, 11:53 AM	Thanan was born into a cult of Nerull worshippers. He was fully indoctrinated into their beliefs and wholeheartedly committed to their cause. Showing no small talent in the unseen art he was at an early age selected to a very great honour indeed: He was to become a Death Dealer, an assassin in the service on Nerull who, to honour his patron, makes all his kills with the scythe (which is Nerull's favoured weapon). But Thanan's training was cut short, for the cult was rooted out and slain by rivalling hextorites. Everyone of the Nerull worshipers were killed, all save for Thanan who managed to hide from the raiders. He now wanders the world with only two goals on his mind: To complete his Death Dealer training and take his vengeance on the hextorites. On his back he carries the scythe given to him by his trainer. Though he is not yet skilled enough to wield it efficiently he practices with it every evening, and yearns for the day it will spill hextorite blood. :clap:
Chrono Nexus 09-08-06, 11:53 AM	You stated in your earlier post that scythes had only been used in combat by peasants when no "purpose" made weapons was available. That statement was incorrect. The scythes used in warfare were NOT of the type the farmers used to work their fields. They were outfitted with them by military and they were made for the sole purpose of killing people. I define that as a weapon, how would you define it? Secondly: I did at no point in my post claim that the war scythe is just another name for a halberd. I did, though, say that they have several attributes in common, just like a Long sword and a shorts word have several attributes in common. So that is indeed an example of scythe being used for combat. The halberd, by the way, had not yet been invented. It's really not looking good for your imagination if the only IC reason to carry the D&D scythe is that you have Profession: Farmer. Since many have seemed to assume that there can be no IC reason for a rogue to carry a scythe I am going to prove you wrong, by coming up with one. Since the OP has disclosed the name of his character I hop he won’t mind me using it. Thanan was born into a cult of Nerull worshippers. He was fully indoctrinated into their beliefs and wholeheartedly committed to their cause. Showing no small talent in the unseen art he was at an early age selected to a very great honour indeed: He was to become a Death Dealer, an assassin in the service on Nerull who, to honour his patron, makes all his kills with the scythe (which is Nerull's favoured weapon). But Thanan's training was cut short, for the cult was rooted out and slain by rivalling hextorites. Everyone of the Nerull worshipers were killed, all save for Thanan who managed to hide from the raiders. He now wanders the world with only two goals on his mind: To complete his Death Dealer training and take his vengeance on the hextorites. On his back he carries the scythe given to him by his trainer. Though he is not yet skilled enough to wield it efficiently he practices with it every evening, and yearns for the day it will spill hextorite blood. Considering the short notice I think it's and ok character concept for an antihero. The ones who attacked the Nerull cult should of course be changed to fit the campaign better. Bad A55 I hadn't had a complete backstory yet... but this is so good, I am considering using it. Also, good job having him target another evil religion to avoid in game conflicts. Here is the link to my sheet... http://www.rpalliance.net/profiler/view.php?id=298
Sulaco 09-08-06, 11:58 AM	I knew a self proclaimed "Role-Player" who was a Paladin of Wee Jas in order to use the Scythe. Had a big list of why the scythe fit his character SOOOOOOOOOO well. Insisted that THIS was the ONE Character for him. I changed the Scythe to x3 CR, and suddenly it was useless. Goodby flaky paladin, hello next character - who wanted to stack Keen and Improved Critical on twin Flaming Burst Kukri. Uh Huh. Too bad his paladin was still alive, ecause if that was the ONE cahracter for him, then as long as it lived he could use that Scythe. Or he could play a character with a more reasonable weapon choice. So scythes are always meta cos you had a crappy player in your game? That makes no sense at all.
OravennasBrother 09-08-06, 12:42 PM	So scythes are always meta cos you had a crappy player in your game? That makes no sense at all. Scythes are meta because it IS THE REPRESENTATION they recieve in the rules (I still don't say for a fact that they were writtne with 'fanbois' in mind) which causes players to want them.
RadicalTaoist 09-08-06, 02:52 PM	Call it your practice weapon, roleplay learning it slowly over the next couple levels, and tell your team mates: "I've got to be quiet - please stuff this in your backpack for the moment, k?" when necessary. When travelling, leave it on the donkey or in the cart. If she still applies the penalty after you become proficient, ask her what her problem is and address it out of character, since further opposition to a rogue who's not even sneaking around with the thing seems to indicate some personal grudge against a character concept.
Sulaco 09-08-06, 03:32 PM	Scythes are meta because it IS THE REPRESENTATION they recieve in the rules (I still don't say for a fact that they were writtne with 'fanbois' in mind) which causes players to want them. That makes no sense. If they are so obviously superior in a meta-sense then far more players would take them for their PCs. Some players are meta players, some are not. It is as simple as that. And I really don't understand this silly "fanboy" argument (and no, spelling it with an "i" doesn't change it). Really, who the hell is a scythe fanboy? They were included as a way of outfitting commoners, and those of commoner stock and origin, with a simple weapon that is fitting for a rural peasant background as well as follower of death gods like Nerull.
LCD2YOU 09-08-06, 03:41 PM	I find it amusing that the entire arguement of the anti-OP crowd has reduced itself to the opinion that the scythe shouldn't be considered a weapon in D&D.Not by this poster. A scythe was an improvised weapon used by angry serfs for a long time. Not only are the peasants revolting, but they're taking up arms against their betters as well. :b The scythe IS a weapon in D&D. It WAS a weapon historically (although perhaps not a prefered weapon). The people in D&D's R&D pool obviously included the weapon version of the scythe in the core game. And just because a few uninformed but outspoken people want to try to censor it out of the game doesn't mean we should.And I agree whole heartedly. However, I don't see where having a 6'-7' tall stick with a 3' or so bladegiving a penalty to hide, move silently, etc., is a bad call. I think we all use them all the time, things called "situational modifiers". If a player ives a great oration, I give them bonuses or a re-roll on Diplomacy or Bluff checks. If a player has a sack full of silverware and metal pots and pans, Moving Silently is a bit harder for them.If the makers of D&D didn't want rogues using large weapons they would have banned it altogether. In fact they didn't attach any sort of penalties whatsoever to a persons choice of weapon beyond non-prof penalties for weilding it. D&D ISN'T real life. If you want to start using size as a penalty for skill use, then you will need a notebook to start making all the mods. Just going off the pictures the scythe is no longer than a quarterstaff. It is a couple feet wide thanks to the blade. But strapped to your back the blade is no wider than your own shoulders are. Most medium sized creatures as well as numerous weapons should be drawing these same penalties if you wanted this so called realism.If that is indeed what the DM did then you are correct. If the DM deemed it that the Scythe was too much and the other members were carrying stuff, but nothing outlandish, then the DM's call is perfectly valid and well within logic and their rights.But the only thing targeted was the scythe of a rogue. Clearly a bad call.See above.Clearly bad GMing. D&D is the way it is because they had to walk that fine line between realism and playablity. This crosses that line and ruins the fun. And as I showed realism toward only one instance is clearly not realism... it is a targeted attack.Well, my idea of fun as a player and a DM is doing things that are not whimsical as a matter of course. Strapping a Polearm on your back and not expecting something of consequence to occur is wistful thinking in my campaign. As long as the DM is consistant, I think it's a fair ruling.
red_scare87 09-08-06, 03:47 PM	@OravennasBrother: In D&D, Scythes are listed as weapons, not as tools. If you want to change it so they're not readily available as a weapon, then fine. Keep in mind though, that his would be a HOUSE RULE, and really has no bearing on this discussion. Also, the historical use of scythes in the real world is moot, because we're not talking about the real world...we're talking about D&D.
OravennasBrother 09-08-06, 04:22 PM	That makes no sense. If they are so obviously superior in a meta-sense then far more players would take them for their PCs. I have yet to see a single instance where the individual taking a scythe did not have the metagame x4 crit in mind. However, the weapon is SO OBVIOUSLY ludicrous that MOST of the people I play with refuse to take it. I know one player who asked if the name could be changed to "Crow's Beak" (AKA Bec d'Corbin) with the same characteristics and the appearance of said polearm, because he WANTED the x4 crit multiplier but HATED the silly idea of the Scythe. And I really don't understand this "fanboy" argument They were included as a way of outfitting commoners, and those of commoner stock and origin, with a simple weapon . Except if they had been included as a Simple Weapon for farmers, why are they Martial Weapons? As a simpe weapon, commoners could be proficient with them. Of course as a simple weapon they would not be able to have such powerful game stats - perhaps 1d8 damage crx2 two handed simple weapon. BUt then who would take such a poor weapon - oh right only peasants who could get nothing better.
Aeromus 09-08-06, 04:24 PM	good catch it is a bit high well here we go my assumption is based on 20gp = 1lb if this is not the case, then my math is off. so 20gp/lb 1500gp/20gp/lb =75lbs 1 troy ounce = $608.90 as of 10:20 EST 9-8-06 there are about 14.5 troy onces in 1 lb so 75lbs x 14.5 troy ounces/lb x $608.90/troy ounce = $662,178.80 edited some stuff that would derail thread. Sorry. just leaving the math for those that care. 50 "coins" in DnD make a pound. Regardless of metal type.
LCD2YOU 09-08-06, 04:29 PM	Well, I don't think a Scythe should be in "Martial Weapons". It is an "Exotic Weapon" as it has special qualities. This is a place I will have to change the RAW for a house rule. If a Bastard Sword is an Exoctic Weapon, I see no reason why a Scythe, a tool used for reaping wheat, should be anything different.
Sulaco 09-08-06, 04:51 PM	I have yet to see a single instance where the individual taking a scythe did not have the metagame x4 crit in mind. However, the weapon is SO OBVIOUSLY ludicrous that MOST of the people I play with refuse to take it. I know one player who asked if the name could be changed to "Crow's Beak" (AKA Bec d'Corbin) with the same characteristics and the appearance of said polearm, because he WANTED the x4 crit multiplier but HATED the silly idea of the Scythe. Again, just cos you have experiences with crap RPers does not in any way make the item itself inherently "meta." I've had players who wanted a 20 STR and 18 CON but wanted to be built like Calista Flockhart. They wanted the benefits of massive physical stats but also the benefits of being small and unassuming. Does that means STR is meta? Or Con? Or stat bonuses? Or small size? Crap players are crap players no matter what. Whatever they happen to be crap about at a particular moment does not mecessarily mean that thing is itself flawed. The weapons is no more OBVIOUSLY ludicrous than many weapons, both real and fantastic, and indeed far less so than many. Just cos the scythe was never heavily adopted as a weapon on Earth does not make it inherently flawed or unable to be so. I know humans are very good a innovation when it comes to means of dealing death, but that does not mean we've got every option covered. In D&D a scythe is a weapon based on a tool, just like hammers, axes, flails and even swords. Realistic or not, the scythe is a D&D weapon and rules exists for strapping large, inflexible items to your back (-2 to certain skills like Hide). The DM seems to be punitively targetting this one player cos she doesn't like the scythe and cannot simply say so like an adult. Except if they had been included as a Simple Weapon for farmers, why are they Martial Weapons? I don't know, I didn't write the fracking thing. If it really bothers you so much why don't you ask the games designers?
Thubby 09-08-06, 05:12 PM	i agree, bad call. non profficiency only aplies to wielding a weapon, not carrying. as to the skill kill, a scythe held on the right way would not vary much from your shape, straped on to you back, blade on bottom, handle slant like a back sword.
OravennasBrother 09-08-06, 05:40 PM	I've had players who wanted a 20 STR and 18 CON but wanted to be built like Calista Flockhart. Don't know who FLockhart is, but I'll guess it's a petite woman. Desiring a High strength does not require metagaming as MANY people IRL want to be stronger, particularly if they fight for a living. When I say META gaming I refer to decisions with NO basis in reality made because of the way something is presented in the game rules. The weapons is no more OBVIOUSLY ludicrous than many weapons, both real and fantastic, and indeed far less so than many. Just cos the scythe was never heavily adopted as a weapon on Earth does not make it inherently flawed or unable to be so. The balance (or lack thereof) of the Scythe DOES however make it an inherently flawed weapon, one unable to compete with "better" more balanced weapons. Balance as I use it here means physical balance NOT game balance. Because the Scythe is represented so badly (it could easily be ruled as a Makeshift weapon, similar to using a blacksmith's hammer in a fight, though most hammers are FAR better weapons than scythes) and because the representation makes it the "perfect" CDG weapon IN GAME TERMS, I instantly become wary when somene tells me "My DM is SOOOO Mean they don't let my Rogue carry a Scythe" - perhaps we can recall the CDG rules, which make it possible for a rogue who successully sneaks up on a sleeping enemy to get both critical hit damage and Sneak attack damage. At higher levels the weapon damage (barring Power Attack) is outweighed by the Rogues SA damage, but at first or second the rogue does 1d6 SA, and with a Dagger would add 2d4+2xStrength Modifier for the critical with a dagger. But with a Scythe he can add 8d4+4xstrength mod for the critical with the scythe. Now step back for a minute and consider; which have you heard of in fiction or even historical accounts - someone sneaking in and cutting throats with daggers or with Scythes? Thus the use of a Scythe for cutting down a sleeping opponent is a META_game decision.
Mufflon 09-08-06, 10:26 PM	...a 2 handed simple weapon that did 1d8 crx2... That's actually a bit to weak even for a simple weapon. If I were to make an accurate, well as accurate as possible within the D&D system, representation of the War Scythe as a simpe weapon I'd say it was a two-handed 10ft reach weapon that deals 1d8 slashing damage. Note though that having a scythe as a simple weapon means that every Tom, Dick and Harry who happen to dabble a bit in necromancy will be carrying one... If you want to convert it into a Martial Weapon simply increase the damage to 1d10 slashing. And if a scythe should be a simple weapon on virtue of once having been a farming tool, then the Kama, Kusarigama and the like also be moved down to simple weapons, no? Now step back for a minute and consider; which have you heard of in fiction or even historical accounts - someone sneaking in and cutting throats with daggers or with Scythes? Thus the use of a Scythe for cutting down a sleeping opponent is a META_game decision. Thus you are saying that unless someone used the idea before you it's meta gaming. You are aware that you, by extension, are saying that disering to create an original character with and original concept is meta gaming, right? Oh and the D&D scythes strength isn't actually its big crits, it's the ability to deal either slashing or piercing damage. As a pure source of damage it is vastly iferior to the greatsword, because you would need a damage bonus (of a type that is multiplied when you score a critical hit)of atleast 39 if you want do have a higher avarage damage with a scythe (note that my calcualtions count every cirtical threat as being confirmed). And if you take the Improved Critical feat you only need a damage bonus of +30 or more. Since such high damage bonuses is impossible for a low level rogue and at higher levels most of his damage, as you stated, will come from SA:s, we can conclude that the Scythe is far from the best choice of weapon for a rogue. I instantly become wary when somene tells me "My DM is SOOOO Mean they don't let my Rogue carry a Scythe" The problem the OP presented was not that the DM didn't allow him to wield a scythe (which, IMAO, would be fine) but that the DM was giving out penalties with no mechanical basis.
OravennasBrother 09-09-06, 01:10 AM	Oh and the D&D scythes strength isn't actually its big crits, It is when used for a CDG; crit range is irrelevant in a CDG, only the multiplier. That is what makes Scythes such powerful CDG weapons. Which is why using them for CDG - when doing so has NO BASIS in reality - makes it a metagame choice. Why do military area infiltration experts use Knives instead of scythes? Answer because IRL a knife, with proper training, is handy for quietly killing an unaware opponent. A scythe is a big bulky thing they would leave behind because it is useless. But by 3.X rules the Knife is less useful for taking down a sentry and the Scythe is ideal for killing sleeping enemies. Meta
SirTodd 09-09-06, 02:15 AM	OravennasBrother seems to be trolling... <i> <b> Nowhere </i> </b> did the poster say he was using this exclusively for CDG. In fact, it seems to be implied he isn't using it at all until he gets the prof feat for it. And then presumably that will be his main weapon. Weapon selection seems to be Metagaming in OravennasBrothers mind. I guess he screams at people who take swords or axes as well because they are 'obviously' metagaming to select a weapon with better stats than a club. I would hate to see how he reacts to a fencer taking that rapier (with it's enhanced crit range).
Mufflon 09-09-06, 09:10 AM	Why do military area infiltration experts use Knives instead of scythes? Damn, I was certain they use guns! Answer because IRL a knife, with proper training, is handy for quietly killing an unaware opponent. A scythe is a big bulky thing they would leave behind because it is useless. Well, whadda ya know, D&D and real life agree on something for once. In D&D someone with the proper training (read Sneak Attack ability, or even better Death Attack ability) is quite handy when it comes to killing unaware sentries with a knife. And since a knife is much easier to conceal it will clearly be very useful to skilled infiltrators. Oh and note that a unaware sentrie is by no means helpless, yes, that means no Coup-De-Grace. Besides, if you find a sleeping enemie he really doesn't pose much of a threat anyway, least of all to a rogue with Sneak Attack, so a weapon useful only for killing sleeping enemies which is generally below par on everything else really isn't very powerful. As for killing of dying enemies you hardly need a x4 crit modifier to do that... As has been stated earlier it would seem that your aversion towards the scythe is mainly based in interaction with crappy role players.
OravennasBrother 09-09-06, 11:23 AM	Damn, I was certain they use guns! Cute:rolleyes: But it does not change the FACT that a Scythe is a VERY Poor Weapon; good tool, poor weapon. A player who insists on using the scythe is almost certainly either silly/stupid or they are metagaming their OOC Knowledge of the Scythe's x4 critical multiplier in making the choice. Picking a Sword, axe,or even Rapier is NOT meta gaming as ALL of those are IC obviously superior to a club. All were used at some point - as they exist, not under some modification which made them completely different - for fighting and killing. The Scythe, Polish military history experts notwithstanding, was NOT.
SirTodd 09-09-06, 12:17 PM	Cute:rolleyes: But it does not change the FACT that a Scythe is a VERY Poor Weapon; good tool, poor weapon. In your opinion only (which is moot in this instance). In the game it is a perfectly valid choice. It may be somewhat inferior (except if you roll that nat20 and confirm the crit). But it looks cool, and it isn't 'horrible' in combat game stat wise. There really isn't much on the tool version, just the weaponized version. A player who insists on using the scythe is almost certainly either silly/stupid or they are metagaming their OOC Knowledge of the Scythe's x4 critical multiplier in making the choice. Here is proof he is trolling. Casting insults to try to generate flames. People choose weapons on two criteria. 1- Concept and image of their character. 2- game stats of the weapon. It isn't metagaming by any definition. People in the game world can be expected to know how the weapons in their world stack up in use. Just like people in the real world will tell you a .45 ACP is a more powerfull handgun than a 9mm Berretta. He can't have it both ways but he sure trys to confuse people. If taking a Scythe is metagaming because of the x4 crit, then clearly choosing a sword , axe, or rapier is also metagaming due to their superior game stats. Picking a Sword, axe,or even Rapier is NOT meta gaming as ALL of those are IC obviously superior to a club. All were used at some point - as they exist, not under some modification which made them completely different - for fighting and killing. The Scythe, Polish military history experts notwithstanding, was NOT. He is clearly having trouble seperating the game from reality. If he wants true to life representation of the weapons, then he needs to spend millions on research setting up real impact and penetration tests against authentic period armors worn by real people in combat. The very fact that D&D uses a die to represent damage is pure fantasy not reality. Perhaps a game like RoleMaster would be more to his liking. It has huge manuals with full page charts for each weapon and the type of wounds inflicted by it. Because I can tell you D&Ds stats on the sword are no more accurate than the ones on the scythe, not from a real life perspective.
Nidair 09-09-06, 02:08 PM	Let me illustrate it: http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a362/Nidair/sticky.jpg This looks clear enough. However, common sense has no place in D&D, as you can even flank with yourself sometimes, still live when all your bones have crumbled to pieces, and gain total cover from objects not even half your size. It won't surprise me if you can also still sneak with an 8-foot pole of mayhem strapped on your back.
SirTodd 09-09-06, 02:38 PM	Um... thats a size huge scythe. The one in the PHB is 6 feet by two feet. In other words the length is the the height of the person the width is the length of the guys shoulders... your picture depicts a 12 foot scythe with a 6 foot blade. False arguement. Besides the game already covers this situation without adding house rules. If your using cover to hide behind it has to be large enough to hide you completely, or it doesn't work. So if your trying to hide with a 12 foot pike then you need a bush that can hide a 12 foot shaft. Otherwise you can't hide, period. A 6 foot human can't hide behind a six inch flower. It isn't a penalty, it's simply not doable.
LCD2YOU 09-09-06, 03:08 PM	Um... thats a size huge scythe. The one in the PHB is 6 feet by two feet. In other words the length is the the height of the person the width is the length of the guys shoulders... your picture depicts a 12 foot scythe with a 6 foot blade. False arguement. Besides the game already covers this situation without adding house rules. If your using cover to hide behind it has to be large enough to hide you completely, or it doesn't work. So if your trying to hide with a 12 foot pike then you need a bush that can hide a 12 foot shaft. Otherwise you can't hide, period. A 6 foot human can't hide behind a six inch flower. It isn't a penalty, it's simply not doable.All hyperbole from Nidair aside (I think what he was drawing was a gnome with a human sized scythe BTW), he isn't too far off the mark. I think even the DMG states that a DM may impose situational modifiers to CR checks. Carrying a scythe (a much better picture than I could draw Nidair :thumbsup: there guy) on one's back trying to be stealthy will impose modifiers. The amount of modifiers could be reasonably from -1 to -5 on the die easily. In some circumstances, -10 to your die roll is not abusive. Heck, the Tower Shield gives a -10 CR armor check so don't say that should never happen. So it doesn't matter if the scythe is a metagaming tool. With negatives for carrying it around, let them use it to their hearts content. Just to make sure though, if a person has time to hide the scythe, which means it is off of their back, the penalty can be minimized if not reduced to 0. Same with carrying the thing. If the person wants to carry the durn thing, I'd say that they have no penalties from it in Moving Silently (but that does interfere with Hiding). Yes, Halberds, Polearms, even having 6 quivers of Longbow Flight arrows I do impose a penalty. Again, those are situational mods.
Endarrion 09-09-06, 09:16 PM	Gadzooks! I just had a revelation. He can just lay the scythe on the ground when he hides. Problem solved. Heck, he could even carry it in hand and use it as a walking staff so that he doensn't incur all of those nonsensical penalties to LIFE. Dang, I'm good.
Mufflon 09-09-06, 09:34 PM	I think even the DMG states that a DM may impose situational modifiers to CR checks. Since there is no such thing as a Challenge Rating check I'm just going to assume you are talking about good ol' fashioned Skill Checks. Carrying a scythe on one's back trying to be stealthy will impose modifiers. Not by RAW it won't... The amount of modifiers could be reasonably from -1 to -5 on the die easily. In some circumstances, -10 to your die roll is not abusive. Heck, the Tower Shield gives a -10 CR armor check so don't say that should never happen. It is very clearly stated that unfavourable circumstances provide a -2 penalty to skill checks. A -5 penalty is clearly too harsh. And giving non-proficiency penalties for a weapon that's just being carried is just wrong. As for the tower shield it does indeed come with a high Armor Check Penalty (don't know nothing about a minus to CR though). Weapons do not come with an Armor Check Penalty. And the Armor Check Penalty granted by the Tower Shield only applies as long as it's equipped which means you can carry it on your back without any negative effects at all.
LCD2YOU 09-10-06, 07:18 AM	Since there is no such thing as a Challenge Rating check I'm just going to assume you are talking about good ol' fashioned Skill Checks.My bad. Yes, that is what I meant.Not by RAW it won't...When you cut and paste what I said, I can see what you mean. But I think a -5 penalty is just fine. It may not be RAW, but so what? Still, it's Rule 0 and as a DM, I think the DM did nothing wrong.It is very clearly stated that unfavourable circumstances provide a -2 penalty to skill checks. A -5 penalty is clearly too harsh. And giving non-proficiency penalties for a weapon that's just being carried is just wrong.Your opinion, not mine or others. So, I guess if you were a DM and I wanted to carry, oh 50 pounds of neon red air gel, about 1 lb/ft3 I'd get a -2 penalty? Great. I also want a pony. No, I think that the DM is perfectly well within their rights as the DM and from this long time DM, I see no issue with a -5 penalty. In fact I'd give a higher penalty based on other circumstances.As for the tower shield it does indeed come with a high Armor Check Penalty (don't know nothing about a minus to CR though). Weapons do not come with an Armor Check Penalty. And the Armor Check Penalty granted by the Tower Shield only applies as long as it's equipped which means you can carry it on your back without any negative effects at all.Again, I wrote quickly and you are right, it is an Armor Check Penalty. In my game, carrying a Tower Shield or using it has little difference. You carry it on your back (I'd love to hear that one when a 5'-6' tower shield is on one's back how they move easily especially when the back of your legs or ankles keep on hitting the bottom edge of the shield) or you strap it to you arm, I believe the penalty is the same. If it isn't by RAW, well that's life. It works that way in my world. OF course in your world, if the PC wants to carry 200lb of tapestry which takes up 25ft3 of volume gets no check penalties, that's your right. Just don't look for it to happen with me. See, while I realizxe that DnD is not realistic at all, I try to get rid of those things which are completely inane, IMO and I do just that. -5 for carrying an oversized farmer implement that has been retro-fitted for war seems like a very reasonable thing. Yes, the bad guys are under the same restrictions. If a ruling is has some merit (and running to the RAW to say it has no merit, arguing from authority as it were) and the rule is applied evenly accross the board, the player has several options: 1: Drop the item 2: Put up with the penalty 3: Find a game that more matches their delicate sensibilities
SirTodd 09-10-06, 10:43 AM	If your carrying a huge volume of red air gel, neon cotton, or anything else larger than the cover you have available, then you CAN'T hide. A -5 or any other penalty to hide is too generous. Remember, you need to have a place to hide before you can hide. Now if the people with all this fluff in their arms want to hide behind something big enough to hide it, like a large building between them and the spotters, then they shouldn't have any penalty.
Mufflon 09-10-06, 06:09 PM	So, I guess if you were a DM and I wanted to carry, oh 50 pounds of neon red air gel, about 1 lb/ft3 I'd get a -2 penalty? Great. I also want a pony. Well I don't know how you do things in your game, but round here we aint got much neon red air gel. But lets assume there was enough neon red air gel to go around. Then I'd ask how and where you were to carry it, and I doubt you could come up with a statisfactory answer. So I wouldn't allow you to carry it at all. Besides I though we were discussing Scythes here, and your blown-out-of-proportion examples don't really have much relevance. No, I think that the DM is perfectly well within their rights as the DM and from this long time DM, I see no issue with a -5 penalty. It's perfectly within the rights of the DM to house rule that the only weapon available in his/her campaign is Black Lotus covered Mouth Darts... Atleast that's what it says in the DMG. Your opinion, not mine or others. Correction: It is my opinion, and that of Wizards of the Coast's Design and Development team, not yours. OF course in your world, if the PC wants to carry 200lb of tapestry which takes up 25ft3 of volume gets no check penalties, that's your right. That would depend on two factors: First the strength score of the PC (If it's below 23 200lbs is a medium load, which incures penalties), and secondly his ability to carry that volume. I must admit I do wonder where my players would come across such a tapesry, since a tapestry hardly is more than an inch thick that gives it a surface of 300 square feet. That's a pretty big tapestry, indeed it is so big that I wouldn't even include it in my campaign. Though I your campaigns might be full of enormous tapestries and neon red air gel, we take things a tad more seriously in my group. Just don't look for it to happen with me. I gave up my expectations of other people a long time ago, only leads to disapointment, it does. -5 for carrying an oversized farmer implement that has been retro-fitted for war seems like a very reasonable thing. Based on what, exactly? Common sense doesn't truly apply to such abstactions as skill modifiers and d20 rolls.
Mufflon 09-10-06, 06:09 PM	If your carrying a huge volume of red air gel, neon cotton, or anything else larger than the cover you have available, then you CAN'T hide. A -5 or any other penalty to hide is too generous. Remember, you need to have a place to hide before you can hide. Now if the people with all this fluff in their arms want to hide behind something big enough to hide it, like a large building between them and the spotters, then they shouldn't have any penalty. Well I guess you could hide behind the mountain of neon red air gel... :P
Reversefigure4 09-10-06, 07:03 PM	Assigning house rule penalties is fine, as long as all the players are aware of it before they make their choices (because it really sucks to waste the money/feats/skills and then be told you can't use it). A house rule saying that you take some sort of negative because of the size of a scythe, greatclub, spear, etc, is fine. However, at some point you want to ask yourself the key question: Is this house rule improving the fun of the game? Think about all the little 'real' things you have to keep track of. Your potions are broken because you put a book in your backpack on top of them. You can't draw your sword - it's stuck in the scabbard because you forgot to clean the orc blood off it. The DM wants to see a diagram of the packing structure of your backpack in order to see how long it will take you to draw the item on the bottom rather than just default to the standard move action. There are many, many ways to make DnD more 'realistic'. But if they don't make it more fun, what's the point? I play this game to swing a sword and slay dragons, not to worry about the amount of cubic feet my weapon is taking up. The reason RAW doesn't cover all this stuff is because it overly-complicates the game. If your group wants to play like this, by all means, but it shouldn't be the norm. ----- As to the OP: If the DM won't take back the call, your options are limited. 1) You can always vote with your feet and find a new game, but you may not wish to do that. 2) You can simply drop the scythe (or better still, ask your DM if you can "undo" it and have the money back you spent, given you didn't understand about the house rules.) 3) Inquire about the exact nature of the house rules. Will all the penalties be dropped if you become proficient in the scythe? If so, take the feat or multi-class to get the profs. Find out if there are house rules applying to other weapons you should know about (or any other house rules, for that matter).
Fangthane 09-10-06, 07:38 PM	Spoiler information at the bottom of this thread, do not read if you ever think you may play Forges of Fury. I think this whole thread is much ado about nothing. It is impossible for a DM to give a comprehensive list of items they find objectionable about the rules. The player certainly has the option of not playing, but also has the option to talk with the DM about their character concept. I am not going to second guess the DM, she has made her ruling. We only have the players perspective. I would not impose a standard penalty, only situational ones. Why? The upcoming example is a door to a dwarven fortress, big, stone, heavy and almost seamless when shut. This is from a published module - Forges of Fury: Opening the door once it has been shut is very hard, as it is barred on the other side. A Strength check (DC 25) is necessary to force it. A Open Lock check (DC 20) can lift the bar much more easily What is realistic about using lockpicks to lift a big heavy beam? If a rogue can do that, he can artfully conceal a scythe when trying to hide.
Norsesmithy 09-10-06, 10:51 PM	I think, in certain situations, the -5 penalty isn't unreasonable, but the OP should sit down with his GM and go over with her several hypothetical situations to see when the modifiers would apply. For instance, a -5 on move silently wouldn't be out of line in heavy undergrowth, but may be unreasonable in an empty corridor. As for the scythe as a weapon, I live on a farm, and own a scythe (amoung many other devious and dangerous implements), and I think that it would make a fine choice in Melee, even with the billy club handles. The wicked sharp edge, and the power of that sort of stroke, both a hacking cut and a vicious peircing motion, should be immediately obvious to anyone with any experience puting pointy things in squishy things. So I disagree with anyone who thinks that scythes are "Metagaming only". Most of my melee charectors have a scythe or two in their "golf bag" (Quiver of Elohanna). Oh, and Fangthane, door bars are seldom 4x4 peices of lumber, that bar may be a half inch steel rod, six inches long. With the right hardwear on the wall and the rest of the door, that steel rod would hold a car at 30 mph, the wall would give way instead. Or maybe it is a bolt system similar to a bank vault, and the rogue is using his lockpicks to tickle the mechanism to retract the bolts. That issue seems to be more a failure of your, and the rest of your gaming group's, imagination, not a failure of realism. :/ just my two cents
Sulaco 09-11-06, 09:17 AM	The balance (or lack thereof) of the Scythe DOES however make it an inherently flawed weapon, one unable to compete with "better" more balanced weapons. Balance as I use it here means physical balance NOT game balance. The physical laws of the D&D universe are not the same as the physcial laws in our universe. There is no reason that in the D&D universe a scythe cannot be a perfectly viable melee weapon and ideed it's inclusion on the D&D weapons list seems to indicate as much.
oxybe 09-11-06, 12:57 PM	i would just like to point out the name of the game is Dungeons & Dragons... yes dragons. Colossal magical lizards that grow larger then houses, breath fire and have both a muscle & bone structure strong enough to support their body, yet light & powerful enough to allow flight. trust me people, you are playing the wrong game by default if you are looking for realism. if you want to house rule things, fine... i have no beef with that. i don't know how most DM's here go about house rules, but i often run them by the players first to see how they react before even thinking about enforcing them, mostly because i follow Sulaco's Law of House Rules very closely. Any rule that will affect the group as a whole (IE House Rule) i find is best discussed as a group, so everyone knows all the facts from Step #1
OravennasBrother 09-11-06, 01:09 PM	I will generously grant that the poster with experience of the scythe as a farm tool could reasonably believe it would make a good weapon. I don't believe that, but I grant he truly might. So if he, or anyone with a few levels of Profession Farmer, or even a background on a farm, wanted to use a scythe as a weapon, I might not jump on them for metagaming. But that is not the case here. The OP Clearly staed he carried the scythe strapped to his back but DID NOT USE IT. But the OP Gives even more eveidence of lacking an IC Reason to carry a scythe I hadn't had a complete backstory yet... but this is so good, I am considering using it. Also, good job having him target another evil religion to avoid in game conflicts. I also have my doubts about the intent to get martial WP with the scythe - think Quickdraw instead, and later the feat to allow CDG as a Standard instead of full round action (if non-core material is allowed). Rogue with Scythe strapped to back ses a chance for a CDG - free action drops his two short swords, swift action draws the Scythe, Full Round CDG. Next round free action drop the scythe, swift action draw spare short swords. :eek:
Chrono Nexus 09-11-06, 01:25 PM	I chose the scythe because I had a character concept- Rogue of death. I hadn't made a complete backstory... but using a scythe seemed to compliment the concept. As for damage output... A greatsword is mechanically superior. 2d6 for an average damage output of 7 before adding str mod, and a crit range of 19-20. It is damage wise superior. As for using the scythe to be a trip monkey... The scythe is nearly identical to the spiked chain except for a few key differences. One, it has a reach of 5 ft rather than 10 ft (that is a big difference). Two, it's crit damage is higher. I chose the scythe because I did not want to play a chainer (I am not a powergamer). I also chose the scythe and not the greatsword because I wanted to play a unique character. My decision to pick it over the greatsword and spiked chain was motivated purely by the character concept. As for your opinion concerning the viability of the weaponized scythe, it is irrelevent. The scythe is in the PHB, and is considered by the designers of DnD to be a weapon.
OravennasBrother 09-11-06, 02:43 PM	As for damage output... A greatsword is mechanically superior. As for using the scythe to be a trip monkey... But for CDG the Quickdraw Scythe, by RAW, is unbeatable. And telling me "Well its a weapon because the GAME lists it as a weapon" is like telling me a 30 Megawatt NdYAG Laser is a weapon because Car Wars (Steve Jackson Games) lists a laser weapon; the aformentioned NdYAG Laser won't ignite FLASH PAPER, no matter how well the game laser may work to punch holes in Chobham tank armor. So a farm tool is listed as a weapon in the game rules; it does not change the item, or its inferior RL combat characteristics.
Fangthane 09-11-06, 02:47 PM	That issue seems to be more a failure of your, and the rest of your gaming group's, imagination, not a failure of realism. :/ just my two cents Hehe, I just want to rip you to threads for that comment, I will just assume that your badly chosen words were unintentional and not the result of a failure to understand fortress construction and the need to resist consistant assult from say a battering ram, and leave it at that. End of being snippy. This whole thread appears to be beating a dead horse though, either people seem to fall into the "D&D is fantasy and almost anything is possible" crowd or the "dispite the fantastical elements there should be some realism" group. The DM made her call.
Bruunwald 09-11-06, 03:06 PM	Weapons don't usually come with a check penalty, per se, but sorry, your DM is right, right, right, right, right. Look, I could choose cannon as my weapon and even take Weapon Focus with it, but that doesn't mean I could just shove one into my pocket and walk off with it. You're carrying around a very large and cumbersome weapon which you lack the ability to wield properly. This may seem unfair, but your DM has to do something to simulate the cumbersome nature of the thing. This reminds me of two things: The time I tried to add a heavy crossbow to my greatsword and maul combination, and the DM mentioned that this was a lot of big weapons with pokey bits to have hanging off of me and ruled for encumbrance (he was right, by the way). And this last session, where the player playing the gnome wizard wanted to strap a pair of six-foot-tall gold candleabras to his back and cross a rope over a wide pit upside-down with them. When I told him how hard it would be, he started moaning and whining. You know what? I didn't have to explain why. The other players (including his girlfriend) reminded him quite loudly that the things were bigger and heavier than he was. The real problem here is not the DM. It's unrealistic players who think that anything not specifically in the PHB under encumbrance should not suffer from it, be it a weapon or some specific treasure. Alas, encumbrance is about more than weight, it's also about size, shape, and the ability to store a thing. And this is not a video game. You can't just pass your guy over the blinking treasure and watch it get automatically added to your score. And yes, it is fantasy and many parts of it do not simulate realism. But even fantasy has to have boundaries in order to be taken seriously.
Feriin 09-11-06, 03:13 PM	No. But, I've used one as a tool on the farm hundreds of times. I've swung one around "pretending" to kill stormtroopers in my youth however, and let me assure you, it was harder to imagine using the scythe as a weapon then it was a stick as a sword. It's near 6/7 feet long. The haft is crooked. It has a billy club like handle that you pretty much HAVE to hold to even swing it. The scythe was "never" built for using as a weapon. Occaisionally a peasent could kill someone with a single swing due to the blades length and the fact that dying person was galloping full speed past them on a horse. Hence the x4 crit multiplyer. Strap that crooked hafted long bladed tool to your back, and see how well you perform dex related tasks. I am not arguing the fact that it would be combersome, I am arguing that it would make an effective weapon.
Chrono Nexus 09-11-06, 03:13 PM	But for CDG the Quickdraw Scythe, by RAW, is unbeatable. And telling me "Well its a weapon because the GAME lists it as a weapon" is like telling me a 30 Megawatt NdYAG Laser is a weapon because Car Wars (Steve Jackson Games) lists a laser weapon; the aformentioned NdYAG Laser won't ignite FLASH PAPER, no matter how well the game laser may work to punch holes in Chobham tank armor. So a farm tool is listed as a weapon in the game rules; it does not change the item, or its inferior RL combat characteristics. Stop using complex analogies to prove your point on what is a very simple issue. DnD is a game... I like realism as much as the next guy (not very much), but I prefer fantasy. The weaponized scythe is imaginary, just like most other elements of the DnD game. I am not playing IR, I am playing DnD. If you want to play reality, go outside and larp. But for CDG the Quickdraw Scythe, by RAW, is unbeatable. I don't even know what a quickdraw scythe is. I think you might mean scythe + quickdraw... but I still don't see how this is superior to all other stratedgies. You're carrying around a very large and cumbersome weapon No, I'm not. A scythe is a medium sized weapon... 6 feet tall, with a 3 foot blade. It only weighs 12 lbs, which is nothing beside the stack of books I carry around. Stored correctly, it should only give me trouble when I crawl through narrow spaces... otherwise it wouldn't give me penalties. If DnD accounted for the size of all objects worn or carried when configuring checks penalties, noone would be able to succeed dex or str related skill checks without being dangerously underequiped.
Mufflon 09-11-06, 03:55 PM	I will generously grant that the poster with experience of the scythe as a farm tool could reasonably believe it would make a good weapon. I don't believe that, but I grant he truly might. So if he, or anyone with a few levels of Profession Farmer, or even a background on a farm, wanted to use a scythe as a weapon, I might not jump on them for metagaming. But that is not the case here. The OP Clearly staed he carried the scythe strapped to his back but DID NOT USE IT. But the OP Gives even more eveidence of lacking an IC Reason to carry a scythe Not quite, the OP stated that he would not use it until he was able to. And in the consencus of the later posts I feel it is evident that he plans on getting proficiency for it. I also must admit I do not see this alleged additional evidence for the lack of an IC reason. I also have my doubts about the intent to get martial WP with the scythe - think Quickdraw instead, and later the feat to allow CDG as a Standard instead of full round action (if non-core material is allowed). Rogue with Scythe strapped to back ses a chance for a CDG - free action drops his two short swords, swift action draws the Scythe, Full Round CDG. Next round free action drop the scythe, swift action draw spare short swords. :eek: If you take a look at the OP:s character sheet (a link was provided in an earlier post) you will notice that he already has proficiency with the scythe. That kinda kills your argument, doesn't it? As for your attempt at a powergaming example I think you better not tell the people at the CO boards. They would laugh at you. Basing a rogue around CDG:s really isn't all that effective.
OravennasBrother 09-11-06, 06:46 PM	Basing a rogue around CDG:s really isn't all that effective. I've met a lot of people who try to powergame and fail. FOr an OC reason I cannot find anything EXCEPT CDG as a ratioale for taking the scythe - as shown earlier it is a mediocre weaopn even in game for ANY other use. However that won't stop someone who want that CDG from using it. Only DM intervention can stop such abuses.
Norsesmithy 09-11-06, 07:16 PM	Sorry Fangthane, it wasn't meant as a shot at you and your group, but rather to point out that just because something makes no sense at first, it doesn't mean that the writer of the module has done something stupid. It did come off far harsher than intended, but I am unsure how to phrase it to be gentler, any suggestions?
LordHawkeye 09-11-06, 07:36 PM	Why is this convo still happening? If players wanted realism, they wouldn't be playing D&D. Case closed already
Endarrion 09-11-06, 07:59 PM	Why is this convo still happening? If players wanted realism, they wouldn't be playing D&D. Case closed already :bow:
scout989 09-11-06, 09:06 PM	I've met a lot of people who try to powergame and fail. FOr an OC reason I cannot find anything EXCEPT CDG as a ratioale for taking the scythe - as shown earlier it is a mediocre weaopn even in game for ANY other use. However that won't stop someone who want that CDG from using it. Only DM intervention can stop such abuses. This is pretty funny. He can't conceive of anything but a truly horrible minmax idea for an OoC reason for choosing the scythe- yet he refuses t oaccept what the OP has stated repeatedly- that the weapon was chosen for IC reasons. OB, you have single-handedly turned this thread into a source of great amusement for me. Thanks.
Mufflon 09-12-06, 08:27 AM	I've met a lot of people who try to powergame and fail. FOr an OC reason I cannot find anything EXCEPT CDG as a ratioale for taking the scythe And thus it is much more likely that the OP has an IC reason for wielding a scythe. Why is this convo still happening? If players wanted realism, they wouldn't be playing D&D. Case closed already 'S just what I said in my first post. This is pretty funny. He can't conceive of anything but a truly horrible minmax idea for an OoC reason for choosing the scythe- yet he refuses t oaccept what the OP has stated repeatedly- that the weapon was chosen for IC reasons. OB, you have single-handedly turned this thread into a source of great amusement for me. Thanks. Yeah, OravennasBrother is a barrel of laughs!
OravennasBrother 09-12-06, 09:38 AM	This is pretty funny. He can't conceive of anything but a truly horrible minmax idea for an OoC reason for choosing the scythe- yet he refuses t oaccept what the OP has stated repeatedly- that the weapon was chosen for IC reasons. Funny Hah hah hah Any DM desiting a modicum of sensibility in their campaign would outlaw the Scythe as a weapon, that the OP's DM tried a gentler approach simply shows how generous that DM is. This does not change the stated fact that the OP DID NOT HAVE A CHARACTER BACKGROUND mandating the scythe. Rather he ripped off the background soemone else posted on this thread. Any player I see trrying to get a Scythe or Spiked Chain or smoe non-core monstrosity will meet a brick wall. They can Waah all they want to any list, even garnering sympathy from simplethetic posters on said list. It won't change anything. No wait, enough waah would change one thing - I'd invite them to leave the group. If asked by the DM for the OP I would advise that DM to do the same.
Sulaco 09-12-06, 10:47 AM	But for CDG the Quickdraw Scythe, by RAW, is unbeatable. And yet most of us never use one and have never DMed for or played with PCs who have used one. And telling me "Well its a weapon because the GAME lists it as a weapon" is like telling me a 30 Megawatt NdYAG Laser is a weapon because Car Wars (Steve Jackson Games) lists a laser weapon; the aformentioned NdYAG Laser won't ignite FLASH PAPER, no matter how well the game laser may work to punch holes in Chobham tank armor.[/QUOTE] It's a weapon in the game because the GAME lists it as a weapon. If the Car Wars game list a 30 Megawatt NdYAG Laser as a weapon then in the Car Wars game a 30 Megawatt NdYAG Laser is a weapon. Its real-life properties don't matter. So a farm tool is listed as a weapon in the game rules; it does not change the item, or its inferior RL combat characteristics. This is not the "real-life" discussion forum, this is a D&D discussion forum. The only thing that applies to this topic are the weapon's characteristics in the D&D game. The D&D game lists the scythe as a weapon so in the D&D game the scythe is a weapon. Its real-life properties don't matter.
Sulaco 09-12-06, 10:50 AM	This whole thread appears to be beating a dead horse though, either people seem to fall into the "D&D is fantasy and almost anything is possible" crowd or the "dispite the fantastical elements there should be some realism" group. "Some realism" does not mean "realism takes precedence over playabilty or fun." The DM made her call. Yes, and that call has no basis in reality or in the D&D rules and seems designed solely to punish one player for a decision that she, the DM, did not like - thus it was a bad call.
Sulaco 09-12-06, 11:00 AM	Funny Hah hah hah Any DM desiting a modicum of sensibility in their campaign would outlaw the Scythe as a weapon, that the OP's DM tried a gentler approach simply shows how generous that DM is. A DM is generous by not arbitraily banning things and letting players take things form teh core rules? Wow, I guess all my DMs have been generous. BTW, what does "desiting" mean? This does not change the stated fact that the OP DID NOT HAVE A CHARACTER BACKGROUND mandating the scythe. Rather he ripped off the background soemone else posted on this thread. Any player I see trrying to get a Scythe or Spiked Chain or smoe non-core monstrosity will meet a brick wall. The scythe and the spiked chain are core weapons. Maybe all these problems you have with this are due to your PHB missing some pages? They can Waah all they want to any list, even garnering sympathy from simplethetic posters on said list. It won't change anything. No wait, enough waah would change one thing - I'd invite them to leave the group. If asked by the DM for the OP I would advise that DM to do the same. You would kick a player out for wanting to take a weapon in the core rules? You wouldn't have to ask me to leave that group, I'd have been long gone or my own accord. Seriously, what is the deal, here. The core rules list the scythe as a wepaon. The Core rules list penalties for strapping an item like this to your back. Everything pertinent ot this disucssion is covered by the core rules. Arguing real-life phtiscs (which is different to D&D physics), ignoring the core rules and being rude and sarcastic adds nothing to this discussion.
Chrono Nexus 09-12-06, 11:16 AM	Funny Hah hah hah Any DM desiting a modicum of sensibility in their campaign would outlaw the Scythe as a weapon, that the OP's DM tried a gentler approach simply shows how generous that DM is. That is your opinion and you are entitiled to it. However, it has no baring on the topic. This does not change the stated fact that the OP DID NOT HAVE A CHARACTER BACKGROUND mandating the scythe. Rather he ripped off the background soemone else posted on this thread. You are right, I did not have a background prior to my player character's creation. I only had a name and a concept- "Thanan, rogue of death". I did not rip off of Mufflon's story- he made the backstory to match my character concept. It was a fantastic backstory, so I decided to use it. Any player I see trrying to get a Scythe or Spiked Chain or smoe non-core monstrosity will meet a brick wall. Have a :cookie:. Again, this has no baring on the discussion. They can Waah all they want to any list, even garnering sympathy from simplethetic posters on said list. I'll keep that in mind the next time I post on one of these "list" things. It won't change anything. No wait, enough waah would change one thing - I'd invite them to leave the group. If asked by the DM for the OP I would advise that DM to do the same. You don't DM very much, do you? Being inflexible about silly and unfair calls doesn't mean you're a good DM. I started this thread looking for advise. I got that advise. As far as I am concerned, the purpose of this thread is fulfilled, and any further posts are only argumentative or repetative.
Ongorth 09-12-06, 11:42 AM	I'm geyfer Zasalamel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:3D-Zasalamel.jpg
OravennasBrother 09-12-06, 12:10 PM	BTW, what does "desiting" mean? It means that T and R are adjacent on a Qwerty typewriter.
Mufflon 09-12-06, 01:08 PM	Rather he ripped off the background soemone else posted on this thread. "Someone else"?! By none other than the Great Mufflon! And he didn't "rip" it per se, I posted it here to illustrate a point. If anyone has any further uses for it I wholeheardedly encourage them. They can Waah all they want to any list, even garnering sympathy from simplethetic posters on said list. It won't change anything. No wait, enough waah would change one thing - I'd invite them to leave the group. If asked by the DM for the OP I would advise that DM to do the same. I am unimaginably relived that you are not my DM. It is also my fond hope that no DM should ever take your advice. The should feel free to read your posts as bad examples or for pure entertainment, though.
Sulaco 09-12-06, 01:46 PM	It means that T and R are adjacent on a Qwerty typewriter. Fair enough. Funnily enough, I didn't even cotton on to it being a typo. Considering how very, very bad my own typing skills are I should have noted that possibility immediately.
OravennasBrother 09-12-06, 04:03 PM	I am unimaginably relived that you are not my DM. It is also my fond hope that no DM should ever take your advice. . I'm too strict for a lot of players - but my group enjoys the style with which I run. True, I don't have any rabid fanboys who yammer for K3WL weapons, but that in part is because as soon as I identify one they are shown the door. A player who wants this style might be just as dismissive of a lenient DM style. I advise as I would refer a DM to rule were I playing - ust as others are free to rule and advise as they prefer. That does not change that the Scythe is a silly weapon and should be changed to the Bec d'Corbin at the minimum. I did come across a reason other then BEING rabid fanboys themselves for the designers to include it: they were pandering to the lowest common denominator in classic Hasbro marketting style.
Chrono Nexus 09-12-06, 04:17 PM	I'm too strict for a lot of players - but my group enjoys the style with which I run. True, I don't have any rabid fanboys who yammer for K3WL weapons, but that in part is because as soon as I identify one they are shown the door. A player who wants this style might be just as dismissive of a lenient DM style. I advise as I would refer a DM to rule were I playing - ust as others are free to rule and advise as they prefer. That does not change that the Scythe is a silly weapon and should be changed to the Bec d'Corbin at the minimum. I did come across a reason other then BEING rabid fanboys themselves for the designers to include it: they were pandering to the lowest common denominator in classic Hasbro marketting style. Sorry, but you come off as a bit snotty. So, let me get this straight, as soon as they show any interest in the "coolness factor" of their characters, you boot them? As for fanboy, it sounds like a term you have coined. I have as yet to meet a DnD fanboy. I can hardly believe your group is satisfied with such a stuffy playstyle, and I bet they would leap (like a hobo on a ham sandwich) at the chance to play the way they want. Anyway, don't be dissin hasbro just because they know how to make a profit. the Scythe is a silly weapon This is an opinion. I agree that the scythe in real life is a questionable weapon, but DND != RL
chava 09-12-06, 05:19 PM	I'm too strict for a lot of players - but my group enjoys the style with which I run. True, I don't have any rabid fanboys who yammer for K3WL weapons, but that in part is because as soon as I identify one they are shown the door. Well, if you definitly have problems with the cool weapons that the barbarian in my game picked... a greatsword. If you're worried about the highly limited circumstance of a x4 damage mulitiplier on a CDG, then it must upset you when the warrior type take power attack with their shiny two handed weapon (2d6 + 1.5 str + 2x power attack penalty... then double on a critical... which is more likely on the greatsword's 19-20 crit range than the scythe's 20)... And a x4 multiplier isn't that bad (heck, there are PrC that will get a bow's multiplier up to 5/6 easy...)
red_scare87 09-12-06, 05:52 PM	I'm going to be honest, I had no idea that scythes had fanboys. So...scythes are the new katana? :P
OravennasBrother 09-12-06, 05:55 PM	Well, if you definitly have problems with the cool weapons that the barbarian in my game picked... a greatsword. Sure, whatever you want to think. If you look at my earlier posts again int might be clear that I have NO PROBLEM with weapons which actually DID ccure IRL. You know, like a GREATSWORD.
chava 09-12-06, 05:58 PM	Granted my own ignorance, what is an IRL?
Always-Late 09-12-06, 06:13 PM	Is the scythe a dumb weapon? Yes, provided not modified for war (in which case, uh, the blade points outward.) If the spiked chain a dumb weapon? Yes, very much so. Is the flail a not-very-useful weapon? Yes. Is the trident dumb? Yes. Is the two-bladed sword flat-out stupid? Yes. Do darts actually hurt people? No. Can a rapier hurt someone in plate? No. Thus, anyone who uses a scythe, spiked chain, flail, trident, two-bladed sword, darts, rapiers, pretty much any exotic weapon (duh, they don't exist) or any "real people didn't use it, Lord of the Rings didn't have them, whatever-well-known fantasy didn't have them" (FANBOI ALERT) weapons is metagaming.DM sounds like he's falling into the realism trap. Trying to make things as realistic as possible. Problem: This is DnD. DnD is NOT realistic and if players wanted realism, they wouldn't be role playing. Savy?PC: Why are trees purple, and grass pink? DM: Because that's the way my campaign works. PC: That's... absurd. DM: This is D&D. PC: Yeah, but I want some sort of realistic connection, with, uh, the real world. Purple trees and green sky just isn't doing that for me. DM: Why the hell do you want realism? This is D&D here! People throw fireballs and stop time, and you care about purple trees?
Chrono Nexus 09-12-06, 06:18 PM	IRL - In real life (also- RL)
Feriin 09-13-06, 10:56 AM	Ignore this
Sulaco 09-13-06, 11:19 AM	I'm going to be honest, I had no idea that scythes had fanboys. Yeah, that's what I said. I think some people just use "fanboy" as a generic insult now for anything or anyone they don't like.
OravennasBrother 09-13-06, 11:26 AM	Is the scythe a dumb weapon? Yes, provided not modified for war (in which case, uh, the blade points outward.) If the spiked chain a dumb weapon? Yes, very much so. Is the flail a not-very-useful weapon? Yes. Is the trident dumb? Yes. Is the two-bladed sword flat-out stupid? Yes. Do darts actually hurt people? No. Can a rapier hurt someone in plate? No. I agree with all these except perhaps the Dart - it was used by primitve folk as a light javelin (and weighed around 10oz to 1lb not the modern sport dart) the Japanese had - as an example - a weapon called the Uchi-ne which had streamers, akin to kite tails, to balance them in flight. The Uchi-ne, from what I can discern, was only useful for cavalry skirmishing against unarmored opponents. So if the dart came with a restriction similar to the whip eh maybe coud appear. Or if I ran a campaign set in the Broze era it migh be common. But for the rest I do ban all the mindless "double weapons" and rapiers appear only if there are guns - and I go to a different game engine for a Musketeer campaign.
Sulaco 09-13-06, 11:26 AM	Thus, anyone who uses a scythe, spiked chain, flail, trident, two-bladed sword, darts, rapiers, pretty much any exotic weapon (duh, they don't exist) or any "real people didn't use it, Lord of the Rings didn't have them, whatever-well-known fantasy didn't have them" (FANBOI ALERT) weapons is metagaming.PC: Why are trees purple, and grass pink? DM: Because that's the way my campaign works. PC: That's... absurd. DM: This is D&D. PC: Yeah, but I want some sort of realistic connection, with, uh, the real world. Purple trees and green sky just isn't doing that for me. DM: Why the hell do you want realism? This is D&D here! People throw fireballs and stop time, and you care about purple trees? >sigh< Why do people always fall back on such extreme hyperbole whenever presented with the "D&D is not realistic" argument? I am goign to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you cannot possibly fail to realize the very simple point he was making, that sacrificing playabilty for the sake of realism is detrimental to the enjoyment of the game. Absurd rubbish about purple trees and green skies add nothing of value to this discussion.
Always-Late 09-13-06, 12:07 PM	>sigh< Why do people always fall back on such extreme hyperbole whenever presented with the "D&D is not realistic" argument? I am goign to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you cannot possibly fail to realize the very simple point he was making, that sacrificing playabilty for the sake of realism is detrimental to the enjoyment of the game.Well, yeah, I got the point. However, I disagree with it, which I hope you saw. Unforunately, you haven't yet told us how 1. playability has been sacrificed and 2. it is bad. I'm sick of the "D&D is not realistic, so don't bother trying" argument as well. Absurd rubbish about purple trees and green skies add nothing of value to this discussion.Neither does the entire train of though. Maybe if you said, "most D&D players don't expect realism in their games," we could have a productive argument, but "if you're playing D&D, you don't want realism" is empirically false (via counterexample, me.) *cough* World of Warcraft *cough*
Sulaco 09-13-06, 01:04 PM	Well, yeah, I got the point. However, I disagree with it, which I hope you saw. Unforunately, you haven't yet told us how 1. playability has been sacrificed and 2. it is bad. I'm sick of the "D&D is not realistic, so don't bother trying" argument as well. Neither does the entire train of though. Maybe if you said, "most D&D players don't expect realism in their games," we could have a productive argument, but "if you're playing D&D, you don't want realism" is empirically false (via counterexample, me.) Luckily I never said anything like "if you're playing D&D, you don't want realism." Rather I said that "sacrificing playabilty for the sake of realism is detrimental to the enjoyment of the game." The DM adding certian siuational modifieres is fine, but handing own a massive persistent penalty in violation of the RAW, and seemingly to punish a single player, is silly. There area huge number of things that are impossible in real-lfie that we ignore for the sake of payability. No one can swing a 6 foot greatsword in a 5 foot wide hallway - no one - yet it happens all the time in D&D. It is impossible to swim in plate armor - impossible - yet it happens all the time in D&D. These are just a couple of instances where realism takes a back seat to playability. This does not mean completely ignoring any sense of reality or making absurd and arbitrary whims like purple trees and green skies, it means knowing when realism gets in the way of a good time and a DM slapping down massive punitive penalties for carrying a weapon - yes weapon, not tool - they do not like certainly qualifies as gettin in the way of a good time *cough* World of Warcraft *cough* Err...wha? :confused:
Norsesmithy 09-13-06, 01:07 PM	Yeah, that's what I said. I think some people just use "fanboy" as a generic insult now for anything or anyone they don't like. Just like an "Activist Judge" is one who rules differently than you would.
Sulaco 09-13-06, 01:09 PM	Just like an "Activist Judge" is one who rules differently than you would. What's an "Activist Judge?" I've never heard the term before.
Norsesmithy 09-13-06, 01:16 PM	It means a judge that is legislating from the bench, by doing things like striking down guncontrol laws or upholding the right of a state to choose to alow medicinal marijuana. It isn't a DnD term, but rather a RL polotical issue.
Archangel62 09-13-06, 01:35 PM	This feels like a bad call because the reasoning behind it seems rather arbitrary. If the DM decided to screw with how the rules for weight and encumberance for this stuff works then they should have warned ahead of time. Orvannes, I've DMd quite a bit and would laugh you out of my house if you tried throwing someone out of a game because they want something cool. Also, the spiked chain and scythe are both core, despite your claiming that they weren't. You don't like some weapon styles or designs, fine, but that doesn't mean that you need to get high and mighty and claim that people that like the weapons either due to appearance or mechanical use are fanboys or munchkins. By your same argument I imagine that all gnomes must be fighters, and you demand that if a player chooses half-orc they have to be a wizard or other class that doesn't use strength. As for realism, realism is important in a game as far as suspension of disbelief goes. But what's more important in a game is fun and internal consistency. Sure, maybe one section of my gameworld might have purple trees, or maybe the earth is hollow and has a civilization inside of it made up of singing walnuts. Yes, it can get annoying but the problem in realism is truly where you draw the line in terms of how realistic you want something. The truth is that realism penalizes melee and skill characters more because of how 'realism' usually nukes weapon choice, use of a skill, or a certain kind of tactic. For casters, well it's magic so realism isn't as much of an issue.
oxybe 09-13-06, 01:36 PM	World of Warcraft is much more limiting then D&D. i only played breifly on another person's account, but i have yet to be able to do half of what i want in WoW then i could in D&D. in short: i back sulaco on this one. realism should NEVER get in the way of fun when it comes to D&D. listen to the man, he knows what he's talking about.
TwistedPuppy 09-13-06, 02:34 PM	in short: i back sulaco on this one. realism should NEVER get in the way of fun when it comes to D&D. I don't have any problem with that statement. At the same time, if having fun absolutely requires the character suffer no penalties to stealthy actions with the thing strapped to his back, "fun" has turned into "doing whatever the character wants with no consequences." The DM is over-reacting, IMO, by putting on a flat negative modifier (whatever the OP's definition of "huge" is) for non-proficiency. She would be justified, though, using situational modifiers - varying as the situation changes. Moving silently down a ten foot wide, ten foot high corridor shouldn't pose any real problem. If rubble was strewn over the floor, maybe - maybe a -1 mod. OTOH, moving silently through underbrush thick with leaves, vines, whatever, the mod might be as much as -4 or even worse. If the character insists on continuing to attempt stealth with the thing strapped on, he's going to have to accept the problem or realise he can't take it with him everywhere, just like a fighter with a high swimming or climb skill isn't going to have on full plate and carry a shield while he's doing it. I'd say the OP needs to sit down with the DM and discuss some situational modifiers in lieu of the flat penalty. As a DM, I would have let him do it... and let him wonder why the bad guys seem to see/hear him more easily than they should. Or maybe let one of the other PCs say, "Hey, I could hear the shaft of that scythe bumping rocks/snagging leaves fifty feet away."
Archangel62 09-13-06, 02:40 PM	From what he said a flat -4 to -6 penalty, that can be quite huge, especially at low levels. I feel that the set penalties of moving with something liek that strapped to your back (-2 listed in DMG) is sufficient.
OravennasBrother 09-13-06, 03:13 PM	Orvannes, I've DMd quite a bit and would laugh you out of my house if you tried throwing someone out of a game because they want something cool. Also, the spiked chain and scythe are both core, despite your claiming that they weren't. Never stated they (spiked Chain and Scythe) were not core, perhaps that was seomone else, but you are free to check to see if you can find an appropriate quote I put in of that allged claim. I still back the DM's call, you still don't. The scythe is still a ridiculous weapon I won't allow in my game, you will allow it in yours. Finally I find the contention that the Scythe is "Cool" ludicrous at best; the association of the Scythe with death is NOT from it's use at war but from the imagery of people being like Wheat, sliced down at any point. Finally I do also limit spellcasters, removing or modifying those spells which have caused the most problems in the games I have run. Any DM should do the same, and if the personal referent of a particular DM is at variance from that of a different DM that is the way of people. As an example - some DM's might reasonably think Magic Missile rather potent for a 1st level spell - even though I have no problem with the spell (I recognize that it is the top end for 1st level spells) it would be silly if a DM had seen it abused to the detriment of their campaign for them to continue to allow it unchecked.
TwistedPuppy 09-13-06, 03:24 PM	From what he said a flat -4 to -6 penalty, that can be quite huge, especially at low levels. I don't disagree that such a flat penalty is inappropriate. I feel that the set penalties of moving with something liek that strapped to your back (-2 listed in DMG) is sufficient. In most cases, probably so. I was painting a worst-case; one would think the PC would know (or at least be given a hint by the DM) that in certain situations carrying the thing will be counterproductive. At that point, if he chooses to carry it anyway then it's on him, not the DM. There's a difference between a character concept (such as a rogue having a scythe, which is unusual but I don't see why a DM should have a problem with it) and a suicide wish. Heck, maybe he can get some wizard to give him a wand that shrinks the silly thing down to a manageable size? Better yet, since it's masterwork, find a wizard to enchant it and have that as a 1x/day feature.
Chrono Nexus 09-13-06, 03:30 PM	I still back the DM's call, you still don't. So what? Your decision to outlaw the scythe and her decision to hand out a check penalty are unrelated. The scythe is still a ridiculous weapon Opinion. I won't allow in my game, you will allow it in yours. Yeah, I will, since it is a DnD weapon. I really don't care what you do in your sessions. Finally I find the contention that the Scythe is "Cool" ludicrous at best; the association of the Scythe with death is NOT from it's use at war but from the imagery of people being like Wheat, sliced down at any point. The coolness of the scythe is because of its association with death. Duh. Finally I do also limit spellcasters, removing or modifying those spells which have caused the most problems in the games I have run. You have spellcasters!:OMG! I thought you only played RL?!?! Any DM should do the same Stop trying to dictate that your way is the correct way to play DnD. There isn't a correct way to play it. As an example - some DM's might reasonably think Magic Missile rather potent for a 1st level spell - even though I have no problem with the spell (I recognize that it is the top end for 1st level spells) it would be silly if a DM had seen it abused to the detriment of their campaign for them to continue to allow it unchecked. I can't see how magic missile could be abused, since it is the most straight-forward spell I have ever seen. Also, I don't see how this has anything to do with the discussion.
Sulaco 09-13-06, 03:44 PM	I don't have any problem with that statement. At the same time, if having fun absolutely requires the character suffer no penalties to stealthy actions with the thing strapped to his back, "fun" has turned into "doing whatever the character wants with no consequences." I never suggested there should be no consequences. There are penalties and they are already spelled out in the DMG, as mentioned earlier in this thread. Strapping a large, stiff object (no jokes, you pervs) like this to your back incurs a -2 penalty on certain actions scuh as Hide. That is right int eh RAW and it covers this situation perfectly. The DM is also within the scope of the RAW to impose additional situational penalties as and when they apply, but slapping a -5 persistent across-the-board penalty, and factoring non-proficienty with the weapon into that penalty, is rubbish. There are many, many situation in which realism is sidestepped in favor of playability, such as the swinging a 6 foot blade in a 5 foot corridor example I mentioned many time previously. This is, to me, one of those times. It is no more difficult or obstructive to carry a scythe on one's back then it is a staff, greatsword, spears or polearm, yet I have never heard of a DM penalizing any of those. If the DM insists that this call is owing to "realism" then carrying any of the aforementioned weapons should incur a similar penalty. Personally, if it were my PC, I'd just remove the blade until such time as I started learning the weapon. If the DM still has imposed a -5 penalty for carrying around what amounts to a staff and stowing a sword-sized blade in my pack - neither of which incurs penatlies according to the RAW - then she is clearly singling out this PC for no reason beyond personal bias.
TwistedPuppy 09-13-06, 04:04 PM	The DM is also within the scope of the RAW to impose additional situational penalties as and when they apply, but slapping a -5 persistent across-the-board penalty, and factoring non-proficienty with the weapon into that penalty, is rubbish. I believe I said that, though with less emotion. Oh, yeah, while it would be no different than using a polearm, etc, I have never witnessed characters wielding those weapons trying to move and be stealthy.
Sulaco 09-13-06, 04:08 PM	Never stated they (spiked Chain and Scythe) were not core, perhaps that was seomone else, but you are free to check to see if you can find an appropriate quote I put in of that allged claim. The appropriate quote was "Any player I see trrying to get a Scythe or Spiked Chain or smoe non-core monstrosity will meet a brick wall." You may not have meant that Scythe and Spiked Chain were not core, but it reads as if you are uisng them as two example of non-core weapons to illustrate your point. I still back the DM's call, you still don't. The scythe is still a ridiculous weapon I won't allow in my game, you will allow it in yours. You are well within your rights as DM to disallow those weapons, or any other you see fit. That is definitely the right way to handle it. Allowing said weapons in the game and then penalizing a player for having one is not the proper way to handle it, however. I despise oversize anime-swords and so I will not let them in my games. Luckily, none of my players likes anime or has any desire to have one so it works out well. If a player did want one, however, I would tell him "Sorry, not in this game." I would not say "Sure" and then bend him over with massive penalties on it. If you don't want it, remove it. Don't give it to your players and them jerk them around over it.
Sulaco 09-13-06, 04:10 PM	I believe I said that. I've said it too. Many times, in fact. I still can't figure out why a lot of folks seem to have missed it.
Archangel62 09-13-06, 05:28 PM	Any player I see trrying to get a Scythe or Spiked Chain or smoe non-core monstrosity will meet a brick wall. This gives the implication that you consider these items non-core. On a side note, I'm fairly liberal about what I allow in my games, if a player wants a big sword, they can get it, they just have to find someone that can make the weapon at that size and have to have the appropriate feats or abilities to wield it proficiently. The scythe is a conceptual weapon and I like the use for it here, the rogue seems to be using it more as a grim reaper type. In a game I saw once there was a guy who played an albino, was the son of a farmer, wore a black robe (wizards robe technically but modified) and wielded a scythe. Guy was a fighter who had a lot of fun scaring the crap out of enemies who thought they were seeing death when he approached. The entire reason was IC, he thought it would be fun and amusing. If Magic Missle is the spell that the casters are using to give you fits than I really do pity you. As it seems that both your imagination and the imagination of your players has a severe cap on it. Ah well, if it makes you happy banning everything and trying to make things look more realistic from your perspective, fine, but the regular types are the ones who get screwed over by this. Also I'd complain loudly about how unrealistic dragons and any kind of powerful monster is if you ran games that way as most of those creatures clearly violate dozens of biological laws and, with all your restrictions already, likely would have conquered the planet by this point.
LCD2YOU 09-13-06, 09:25 PM	Hi all, Been busy. I'm in Salinas this week and I generally don't carry my DnD books. What is the RAW of -2 that's being brought up. I don't remember that. Still, it's situational. I have no problem with a -5 to Hide and Move Silently under certain circumstances. To the OP, is te -5 all the time?
Chrono Nexus 09-13-06, 09:33 PM	Yes, it is -5 all the time. But never mind, this discussion has stailed, it's degenerated into a petty feud led by OrevennasBrother about how correct he is, and how foolish the rest of us are not to ban 50% of all the core material because it isn't historically correct.
LCD2YOU 09-13-06, 09:38 PM	Yes, it is -5 all the time. But never mind, this discussion has stailed, it's degenerated into a petty feud led by OrevennasBrother about how correct he is, and how foolish the rest of us are not to ban 50% of all the core material because it isn't historically correct.Then ignore him. See, I think there are times that a -5 may be generous. But if you're trying to Move Silently down the middle of a wide hallway, then there is no penalty. If you're trying to hide in a rough hewn cave, that could be an issue. Again everything is a trade off.
slacks 09-13-06, 10:48 PM	I've met a lot of people who try to powergame and fail. FOr an OC reason I cannot find anything EXCEPT CDG as a ratioale for taking the scythe - as shown earlier it is a mediocre weaopn even in game for ANY other use. However that won't stop someone who want that CDG from using it. Only DM intervention can stop such abuses. So a weapon that is only good for CDG is an abuse of the system? It sounds to me like you have an issue with CDG and not that weapon. I would suggest banning or limiting CDGs in your game since, if they are abused, they can be abused pretty well by almost any weapon. PC: Why are trees purple, and grass pink? DM: Because that's the way my campaign works. PC: That's... absurd. DM: This is D&D. PC: Yeah, but I want some sort of realistic connection, with, uh, the real world. Purple trees and green sky just isn't doing that for me. DM: Why the hell do you want realism? This is D&D here! People throw fireballs and stop time, and you care about purple trees? Luckilly I've modeled string theory into my game so I don't have to rely on your piddly "Newtonian physics." I'll get back to you after my character finishes rolling the probable position of his atoms... Obviously there is a middle ground. The happy place to be for most people comes when the world is reasonably well modeled so that things are intuitive, but not so closely modeled that you have to check some table for every little situation. This particular case appears to be on the edge of the happy zone, as evidenced by how some people are reacting. However, since everyone (more or less) already knows the current rules it is usually better to leave off new ones unless they make the game significantly better.
Always-Late 09-13-06, 10:56 PM	This does not mean completely ignoring any sense of reality or making absurd and arbitrary whims like purple trees and green skies, it means knowing when realism gets in the way of a good time and a DM slapping down massive punitive penalties for carrying a weapon - yes weapon, not tool - they do not like certainly qualifies as gettin in the way of a good timeFor the sake of realism. It's a big pole you carry on your back; we hand-wave away the "high-level" unrealistic things away (ie, magic,) but for mundane systems we expect some sort of realism. I, myself, would probably administer a penalty from -0 to -4 based on the skill if I were to implement it at all. (Swimming, fine. Sneaking around, probably high. Move silently, depends on where. Tumble, yes. That's probably the extent of it.)Err...wha? :confused:I actually don't play World of Warcraft, but I'm pretty sure they have purple trees in WoW.
Archangel62 09-14-06, 05:39 AM	The main problem with this call is that it seems excruciatingly arbitrary which I find to be quite unfair. I honestly would love to know what the DMs rationale is and what the equipment of the other characters is.
Lunar_Shadow 09-14-06, 08:24 AM	I may be mistaken, but can't you get Small version of the scythe? If you can, if the OP took the Small version the penalties would be somewhat reduced. (Just had a mental image of a midget Grim Reaper)
Chrono Nexus 09-14-06, 08:27 AM	I might just get a specially crafted scythe that's blade folds... that way it isn't more encumbering than a stave. Edit: A scythe is not a huge weapon! It is 6ft long at most! It weighs 12lbs, and is medium sized.
LCD2YOU 09-14-06, 09:18 AM	I might just get a specially crafted scythe that's blade folds... that way it isn't more encumbering than a stave. Edit: A scythe is not a huge weapon! It is 6ft long at most! It weighs 12lbs, and is medium sized.It's not always the weight but if the object in question is somehow ungainy. I'd qualify the Scythe as an ungainy object. The blade is 2 to 3 foot off of the shaft and then it still has that haft in the middle of the pole that can stick out at the most inopportune times. If you're trying to walk through underbrush with that thing, I can see heavy penalties. If you're in a narrow corridor, the blade can easily drag across the wall. But like I stated earlier, there are times when it is not a factor in any check.
Sulaco 09-14-06, 09:27 AM	Hi all, Been busy. I'm in Salinas this week and I generally don't carry my DnD books. What is the RAW of -2 that's being brought up. I don't remember that. It is somewhere earlier in the thread. Page 60-something in the DMG IIRC.
Sulaco 09-14-06, 09:40 AM	For the sake of realism. It's a big pole you carry on your back; we hand-wave away the "high-level" unrealistic things away (ie, magic,) but for mundane systems we expect some sort of realism. I, myself, would probably administer a penalty from -0 to -4 based on the skill if I were to implement it at all. (Swimming, fine. Sneaking around, probably high. Move silently, depends on where. Tumble, yes. That's probably the extent of it.) Yes, it's a big pole you carry on your back. Thus it should incur the -2 penalty on some skills that is indicated in the DMG and perhaps additional situational penalties. A persistent -5 penalty, especially one that claims non-proficiency with the weapon as a justification, is rubbish. I actually don't play World of Warcraft, but I'm pretty sure they have purple trees in WoW. I do play WoW and the only place where there are purple trees are the Night Elf lands. They are there with specifc purpose and intent, not just tossed in arbitrarily "cos it's fantasy."
Aliandrin 09-14-06, 08:42 PM	I am going to be ranting too, but first, since advice was what was asked for before all else, here is my honest dissection of the problem and its source. I think the person referred to as OP is unhappy because 4 + 4 = 7. Don't get me wrong, I would be unhappy too, but the problem isn't with the 7, it's with either the first 4, the second 4, or the plus sign. But hon, you have to realize that a lot of times, 4 + 4 is going to equal 7, you can't change that, the best thing you can do is anticipate it. 1, numero uno – First and Foremost: Talk to your DM before you make a character, or at least before your character is brought into play. Tell her: Here is my character and his feats and skills, he equals 4. Here is the equipment he has, which equals four. Now by the rules, here is what he can do, because this does this and this does that (explain the = sign most of all). That all equals 8 ("here is what my character is built for"), is that okay with you? Please believe me, this makes a world of difference. Especially if you're pulling out some combo you don't want your DM to go "WTF!?" and have a heart attack (followed by a DM smite of some sort) when you suddenly take out an incredibly powerful monster in one hit. I personally do not do sick little combos, but this strategy works for other things as well, the rundown of your character will give your DM a chance to object to anything while it's still within your power to make him differently. And it gives you the hole card of being able to say, "I explained to you that he could do that, and you told me okay." ..... Now for the rant. I agree so much with OravennasBrother it hurts. Except about one thing... Banning the weapon all-out isn't stricter than letting the weapon in and enforcing penalties, and letting it in with penalties isn't being more generous - if the weapon had never been available to buy, the character would have spent less money on a more "core" weapon (GP+), probably had a slightly better weapon (Power+) and would have been better able to move silently (Power+). But being a strict DM is how it has to be. That's why I can't DM myself, I always let myself be beholden to the RaW and everyone just walks all over me, even if my calls are right which they are nearly all the time, they just continue to argue and freeze the game until they get their way. And each one is always looking for ways to enforce the full weight of the most sticklery rules on all the others and get off scott free himself. They use alignment as a shield for their actions. PC1 - "My character's chaotic neutral, he felt like hitting you." PC2 - "I hit him back." PC1 - "Ooooo! Alignment change!!! Ha-ha!" When someone else is DM, the Nerull Scythe Paladin would have been applauded as original while any character I make can be made to seem as if it was copied from something, mostly things I've never heard of, such as making my character's catchphrase "Bwee." and someone claiming I stole it from somewhere else. I can't say how glad I am that a Paladin of Nerull got crippled with a house rule. I usually play in a world where everyone else picks the very best available, and I always end up with the weakest character. I cannot stand to see another half-dragon wielding a two-handed weapon. I always see the Good Roleplayers with clever backstories that perfectly support the optimum build. Some of you might not want to play with such a strict DM as OravennasBrother, but that's the only type of DM I'd want. Why? Because I live in a world where whiners usually get their way eventually, they’re never asked to leave the game. They just argue until they’re eventually proven right or let win, while if the DM tells me something rules-wise that’s against the Rules As Written, I simply say, “Are you sure that’s the way that works?” and if he still says the same thing, I leave it be. In any game I’m in, there’s always one or two strong characters, who pick the very best available and blow through the toughest monsters I can’t even hit, in a single strike or breath weapon use. Hmm, halfdragon + Dragon Breath feat + Quicken Breath + Two-handed full attack = instakill. In a game I was in, we were given the choice between a few extra stat points, almost any super-race (including halfdragon) or a gestalt character. I chose gestalt ninja/cleric for the good skills, versatility, and the single combo of sneak attack (or in my case sudden strike) with the occasional ranged touch spell. Others of course had a halfdragon fighter with maxed strength wielding (of course) a two-handed weapon. Single class characters chose to get the “all cleric spells at will” combo by taking first Warmage and then the prestige class Rainbow Servant. Other possible gestalts included monk/specialist fighter (pugilist). I hate being weak, but I also hate being cheesy, which means that compared to everyone else, I am always the weakest character because I don’t instantly use what I’m given to max out my character. I long to be in just one game where the cheesy and overpowered are shown the door, and people who go “whaa” don’t always get their way. Certain feats would make my character more cheesy, but I just don’t like being cheesy. Also, in any game I’m in, there’s one Chaotic person who uses his alignment as a shield for everything he does; disrupting the party’s efforts, usually for the sake of buffoonery, or even just for the sake of humiliating everyone else and slowing progress of the game. Even killing at random doesn’t turn such characters Evil, because, “My character is Chaotic, he felt like it.” I somehow don’t think that a game run by OravennasBrother would turn out that way, and I would welcome a strict game if it also means that the strictness would be used to make the game run smoothly. I would just like to be in one game where nobody is allowed to be Chaotic and everyone feels the consequences of their actions equally. I'm not the best roleplayer, but I feel more consequences than the worst, who feels none, because if you're Chaotic, you can do whatever you want. I only wish OravennasBrother lived in Florida. Oh, and D&D is realistic. It's realistic within its own laws of physics and rules in that they apply consistently, just like any universe imaginable. Maybe in some alternate dimension, they play a game that mimics our universe exactly, and there is a rant going on about how it isn't "realistic" but see how reality itself can be subjective?
Chrono Nexus 09-14-06, 10:08 PM	If a healthy social game, the players should account for at least 50% of any activities. If the players are playing badly, no set of rules, no matter how strict, will make them better players.
Aliandrin 09-14-06, 11:27 PM	But showing the bad players the door will make the remaining group better.
The Soul Collector 09-15-06, 12:26 AM	Have that player read the book?
Andrew_980 09-15-06, 12:55 AM	But being a strict DM is how it has to be true but the other part is fair, wich the DM in this case is not. Why? Because I live in a world where whiners usually get their way eventually, they’re never asked to leave the game. They just argue until they’re eventually proven right or let win, while if the DM tells me something rules-wise that’s against the Rules As Written, I simply say, “Are you sure that’s the way that works?” and if he still says the same thing, I leave it be. I have left groups for this behavour, i know what you mean I am always the weakest character because I don’t instantly use what I’m given to max out my character. I long to be in just one game where the cheesy and overpowered are shown the door, and people who go “whaa” don’t always get their way. Certain feats would make my character more cheesy, but I just don’t like being cheesy. Where do you live, i need a few players like you!!
oxybe 09-15-06, 08:15 AM	in a badly synched godzilla movie style ***oxybe, rant mode... activate!*** 1, numero uno – First and Foremost: Talk to your DM before you make a character, or at least before your character is brought into play. the DM should be present during character creation anyways, if only to check at what rolls are made. also 4+4 should always equal 8. I ain't a mathmatician but if ever 4+4=7, i'd look over my math once more... or at least check to see if i didn't lose a finger on one of my hands... :P if a player wants 4+4 to =8, i will do my best to help him out. I hate being weak, but I also hate being cheesy, which means that compared to everyone else, I am always the weakest character because I don’t instantly use what I’m given to max out my character. I long to be in just one game where the cheesy and overpowered are shown the door, and people who go “whaa” don’t always get their way. Certain feats would make my character more cheesy, but I just don’t like being cheesy. your choice. they chose theirs, you chose yours. if "cheesy" and "overpowered" is their playstyle, then they are obviously not overpowered or cheesy since it is the norm for the group. i don't know what your playstyle is but it doesn't seem to mesh well with the group (have you ever talked to them before about their feat, race & class choices?). and to be honest, i love cheese (especially on burgers, fries with gravy or simply as a snack)! also what is cheezy and overpowered? a rogue/ranger with twf? a cleric who's better at up close combat then any strait up fighter? a wizard who says boom and things explode? if you have that much of a problem with their playstyle, you can always leave the group (though i admit this is difficult... for a long time my group was the only group where i used to live... i now live in a bigger city so i have a few options) i myself see no reason to DM with the proverbial paladin stick up my butt. i am firm when needed but i generally tend to be very relaxed and i allow most things without blinking. a little power and cheese is good in my books. if you want to live in a dangerous world, you need a few tricks up your sleeve to survive. what does the "dragon breath" feat do? i'm guessing it allows you to use your breath attack every 1d4+1 rounds (like a normal dragon), since quicken breath heightens the waiting time until your next breath to allow it at insta speed. it doesn't seem that broken at all. power attacking with every attack is not uber & gaining a few extra damage every 5+ rounds is nothing to brag about. your ninja cleric could easily out perform that without blinking if you did take the time to optimize your spell + feat selection a little bit (you probly won't since you stated you disliked "cheese", but if you ever needed to, you could out do those half dragons, though this may depend on your level). as a funny side note, you actually picked the powergamer option... gesalt. very few racial selection can give you options and power gesalt can. most gesalt characters are considered to be 2-3 points above their normal ECL.
Tharin G'tal 09-15-06, 08:56 AM	Why on earth would a rogue carry a scythe - it's a farm tool, not a weapon. Sure D&D 3.X makes it SEEM like a weapon, but it is NOT. Actually there are historical referances to scythes being used in battle by conscripted peasants as late as the English Civil War. The Scythe is a well balanced tool with a large curved blade which comes to a point, how can that not be used as a weapon? The majority of medievil weapons came from farm tools these include, maces, flails, quarter staves, axes, all pole arms, nets, warhammers and oh yeah even the sword :D
Chrono Nexus 09-15-06, 09:24 AM	But showing the bad players the door will make the remaining group better. No, it will make the group smaller. Subtracting players will not make the removed players better, nor will it make the other players better. It will only remove problem elements- it will not solve them.
Sulaco 09-15-06, 09:31 AM	Why on earth would a rogue carry a scythe - it's a farm tool, not a weapon. Sure D&D 3.X makes it SEEM like a weapon, but it is NOT. D&D doesn't make it SEEM like a weapon, D&D makes it a weapon. That is why it is on the D&D weapons list. Whether it is a tool or weapon in the real world has no bearing on that whatsoever.
SirTodd 09-15-06, 10:57 AM	No, it will make the group smaller. Subtracting players will not make the removed players better, nor will it make the other players better. It will only remove problem elements- it will not solve them. Solve them? Unfortunately people can't be changed by others. If the person truely wants to change then thats the only time they can change. If a problem player (or DM) isn't booted from a group, they continue misbehaving. Ultimately if a person is being unreasonable it is the only way to let them see they have a problem. Sometimes the best thing a friend can do is stop a person from their own misbehavior. PS: It also helps if you stay their friend while they sit out of the activity. It gives them hope and might motivate them to want change.
OravennasBrother 09-15-06, 12:09 PM	Actually there are historical referances to scythes being used in battle by conscripted peasants as late as the English Civil War. The Scythe is a well balanced tool with a large curved blade which comes to a point, how can that not be used as a weapon? Again? A scythe wielder faced with a spear wielder (as an example) has a HUGE disadvantage in terms of recovery time. Once a blow is made it takes FAR longer for the scythe wielder to recover and be ready to make another strike than it does the spear wielder. This is why ONLY peasants who could afford no better used a farm scythe as a weapon. Given the choice between a scythe and NO weapon the choice is clear. But the choice betwen a scythe and spear is JUST as clear - take the spear. However as represented in the 3.X rules the choice is reversed, taking the scythe is the better choice bcause of the game mechanics. Ludicrous.
LCD2YOU 09-15-06, 01:17 PM	No, it will make the group smaller. Subtracting players will not make the removed players better, nor will it make the other players better. It will only remove problem elements- it will not solve them.I'd rather be a DM for or a player in a party of 4 ok to good players then either when there's a real jerk in the group. I don't have time to put up for very lng to deal with another's emotional issues. They want to play and behave? Great! They want to act like a spoiled child? I hope the screen don't hit 'em where the good lord split 'em.
LCD2YOU 09-15-06, 01:21 PM	Again? A scythe wielder faced with a spear wielder (as an example) has a HUGE disadvantage in terms of recovery time. Once a blow is made it takes FAR longer for the scythe wielder to recover and be ready to make another strike than it does the spear wielder. This is why ONLY peasants who could afford no better used a farm scythe as a weapon. Given the choice between a scythe and NO weapon the choice is clear. But the choice betwen a scythe and spear is JUST as clear - take the spear. However as represented in the 3.X rules the choice is reversed, taking the scythe is the better choice bcause of the game mechanics. Ludicrous.The same can be said for many weapons. While a Long Spear or Halberd is great, once inside the weapons' reach, the weilder has a nightmare on their hands. The weapon is too long and can be thwarted easily and amost always by a guy with a sword and Sheild. A good fighter can easily step inside the reach of a "Long Spear" and then whack on them with a sword all day long. Hint: It is why the sword and shield are so popular. Even against equal opponents, a Sword and Sheild beats Long Spear almost everytime. The Zulus realized this. In my homebrew stuff, you'll see fighters carrying Sword and Sheild as primary weapons. Why? They work the best. Don't get me wrong, a Bow is great at 20' to 100' and bringing a sword and sheild into a fight against a bow weapon is deadly for the swordsman. Same for massed ranks of Long Spear or Polearm vs Sword and Sheild. The weapons are there and even a Scythe will work but each has it's limitations.
OravennasBrother 09-15-06, 02:26 PM	The same can be said for many weapons. While a Long Spear or Halberd is great, once inside the weapons' reach, INdeed, but the Scythe has NO optimum performance - at 8' engagement range the spear beats it, up close, the sword and board beat it. This is due to it being balanced for a work tool with wide even strokes, not a weapon with quick responce needed - Wheat does not dodge or strike back.
LCD2YOU 09-15-06, 02:38 PM	INdeed, but the Scythe has NO optimum performance - at 8' engagement range the spear beats it, up close, the sword and board beat it. This is due to it being balanced for a work tool with wide even strokes, not a weapon with quick responce needed - Wheat does not dodge or strike back.But with what you said it makes a great weapon to attack someone in their sleep. Still, there is this thing of having room to use the darn thing. As many "dark age" rooms were not much over 2m in height if that, using the scythe to assasinate someone in a bed in a room is problematic. Using the scythe with an orver hand arcing swing to for a coup attack in the great outdoors would work just great. Everything is situational. And no, what some may think is a "fun" or "neat" idea I can think of it as too weird to contemplate.
danzig138 09-15-06, 05:01 PM	This rule certainly does not seem to be in any way enhancing the fun or enjoyment of the game. Indeed, it seems to be hindering it. IMO it has to go.Normally, I'm pretty much in step with your opinions on things. But "The Law" needs a revision. House rules shouldn't be based on making the game more "fun" - they should be based on making the game more enjoyable. The two aren't the same (IMO, YMMV, blah blah). The DM can't cater to everyone's need of "fun". Perhaps for him, this rules makes the game more enjoyable. He has to enjoy the game as well. As long as any other characters take the same penalty when they strap scythes to their backs. Concerning the OP - suck it up or buy a mule. I'd make a similar ruling. Just like I wouldn't let you quick draw an M-16 on a sling if you have it slung on the same shoulder as 6 other battle rifles. I try not to let it happen to often, but occasionally, I do try and apply some common sense to the game. The sense of reality helps make the game more enjoyable for me. Concerning the six-foot sword in the five-foot hallway. . . well, you'd have a problem in that IMG. I remember when weapon stats had a listed fighting space. Always thought that was a nifty rule.
Sulaco 09-15-06, 05:11 PM	This is due to it being balanced for a work tool I believe it says specifically that the D&D weapon named scythe is "weighted and balanced for combat." Once again, in D&D there is a weapon called "scythe". Whether or not the tool known as a "scythe" is a viable weapon in real life has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever.
Tharin G'tal 09-15-06, 05:15 PM	INdeed, but the Scythe has NO optimum performance - at 8' engagement range the spear beats it, up close, the sword and board beat it. This is due to it being balanced for a work tool with wide even strokes, not a weapon with quick responce needed - Wheat does not dodge or strike back. The same is true of all great weapons, they deliver a horrendous amount of damage but are slow and unwieldly to use. They were origionally used in a skirmish formation against mounted opposition, the same can be said of a scythe. Your arguments are pointless the OP asked whether his dm was being fair not whether scythes should or could be used as a weapon :D
kelvinaw273 09-15-06, 07:14 PM	If a GM wishes to have a more realistic game then he/she would do better to go down to the local gaming store and buy a system geared towards realism, since D&D clearly is not. This is simply because it would require a LOT more work than handing out small penalties for certain weapons. I have been in plenty of 'gritty' D&D games, and they were a lot of fun. Clealry it isn't the style you like, but that does not make it wrong. Since the OP have disclosed none of his in-game reasons for choosing to carry a scythe I am curios as to you have come by this information. Precisely the same reason? You give out penalties for players doing "dumb" things!?! I quite frankly find that notion to be completely absurd. Especially since the OP might very well have a role-playing reason to do this "dumb" thing, do you also advocate giving out penalties to players who choose suboptimal character builds instead of power gaming? In game, yes. If a player wants to put on lead boots to protect the soles of their feet, I will in fact give them a penalty on their move silently checks even though this is not included in the RAW. <gasp> Terrible aren't I? As for the power-gaming vs role-play argument, that is a question of player style and I'm not even going to go there. I most heartily disagree. Why would planning out your character advancement beforehand be a trademark of power gaming? I fancy myself as quite the role-player and I often have a set purpose for my characters. Indeed if the player adhered solely to "what he may encounter or what the needs of the party are" I would see that as a clearer sign of power gaming. To choose not to be the very best, mechanically, can hardly be called power gaming. Characters interact with the world around them, just as you or I do. We plan our careers based on what works already and what we aspire to and what the circumstamnces are at present. Often we seek niches that are available, and we are flexible and adaptable (this is a survival feature of the human species, by the way). If you plan every character developement, every level-up, in minute detail at level 1 to take you to level 20, you are plainly not interacting with the world if you insist on taking it in the face of overwhelming evidence that in your current circumstances it just isn't a good idea (this can be for a great many reasons). Hence, I call it bad role-playing. I will differentiate that it isn't a bad idea to have an idea as to where you want to go. Just don't carve it in stone at level 1. Lugging around a scythe for the hell of it is just damn silly, in my opinion. Picking one up and learning to use on at level 3 is one thing. But why lug one around up until then? Is the character a farmer? What is his reasoning, other than "I plan to take exotic weapon profficency (scythe) at level 3" which is pure matagame? Since putting up and shutting up in this case clearly mean the same, enduring a disliked rule, the choice you are presenting truly isn't a choice at all. And as a DM if find the idea that the DM is some form of all-powerful Tyrant and that any disagreement with his/her word is the greatest heresy to be completely horrifying. Any DM that adds a rule with which the Player(s) are not comfortable is clearly doing something wrong. As a DM I value the feedback I get on my house rules, and I would be very upset if a player would leave because of one of them. So if all your players got together and told you as a DM that they felt that in your campaign world undead should not exist (none of them want to play a cleric), epic weapons should be available to 1st level characters priced no more than 20gp, and all CR's they face should be reduced by 3 and experience point gains multiplied by 10 so they can level up faster, you'd do it? In this particular case it seems that the DM and player styles are at odds. As we cannot assume that any of the other players have a problem with the DM's style, it seems this player is the one who has to take it on the chin or vote with his feet. If the pictures of weapons in the PHB were used as accurate depictions in conjunction with some homebrew weapon-realism most of them would be completely unusable. As for the claims of the scythe being solely a farming implement they are simply false. There are many recordede instances throughout history where scythes, of a type which were made with battle in mind, were used in warefare. Yes, the kusari-gama is an example (the real one, not the small one represented in the DMG). It was a hard weapon to use (I have practiced with one, trust me on this) and was used because it could be disguised as a common agricultural tool. However the use of a scythe in warfare is not actually in question here, just the encumbrance value of strapping a dirty great agricultural tool to your back and lugging the awkward thing around for no apparently good in-game reason.
Chrono Nexus 09-15-06, 07:31 PM	In game, yes. If a player wants to put on lead boots to protect the soles of their feet, I will in fact give them a penalty on their move silently checks even though this is not included in the RAW. <gasp> Terrible aren't I? As for the power-gaming vs role-play argument, that is a question of player style and I'm not even going to go there. Are you sure, that's exactly where I thought you were going. Characters interact with the world around them, just as you or I do. We plan our careers based on what works already and what we aspire to and what the circumstamnces are at present. Often we seek niches that are available, and we are flexible and adaptable (this is a survival feature of the human species, by the way). If you plan every character developement, every level-up, in minute detail at level 1 to take you to level 20, you are plainly not interacting with the world if you insist on taking it in the face of overwhelming evidence that in your current circumstances it just isn't a good idea (this can be for a great many reasons). Hence, I call it bad role-playing. Yes, I agree with you. That's why I never make a new character above level 6. It's too easy to powergame with all of those free levels floating around. Lugging around a scythe for the hell of it is just damn silly, in my opinion. Picking one up and learning to use on at level 3 is one thing. But why lug one around up until then? Is the character a farmer? More like an assassin of Nerull. What is his reasoning, other than "I plan to take exotic weapon profficency (scythe) at level 3" which is pure matagame? I plan to train in the use of the scythe to avenge the deaths of my comrades, and to restore the honor of my religion that was lost to the Hextorites (by reaping as many as I can). BTW- for the last time, a scythe is a Martial weapon, not exotic. So if all your players got together and told you as a DM that they felt that in your campaign world undead should not exist (none of them want to play a cleric), epic weapons should be available to 1st level characters priced no more than 20gp, and all CR's they face should be reduced by 3 and experience point gains multiplied by 10 so they can level up faster, you'd do it? I'd ask them what they've been huffing, and to keep it away from me. You can't compare that obsurd situation with carrying a scythe around. In this particular case it seems that the DM and player styles are at odds. As we cannot assume that any of the other players have a problem with the DM's style, it seems this player is the one who has to take it on the chin or vote with his feet. Her playstyle is handing out penalties roleplayers that have equipment that doesn't match her conception of what a character of their class should be carrying. It turns out she was a new DM, and also believed being a DM carried some kind of real world status. However the use of a scythe in warfare is not actually in question here, just the encumbrance value of strapping a dirty great agricultural tool to your back and lugging the awkward thing around for no apparently good in-game reason. I keep the tools of my trade Very clean, thank you very much. Actually, it IS the warscythe that we are discussing, as in, the Weapon from the PHB, not the farming implement. I've already explained my in-game reasons for carrying it. Go back and read my prior posts if you want to know more.
slacks 09-15-06, 07:38 PM	In game, yes. If a player wants to put on lead boots to protect the soles of their feet, I will in fact give them a penalty on their move silently checks even though this is not included in the RAW. <gasp> Terrible aren't I? As for the power-gaming vs role-play argument, that is a question of player style and I'm not even going to go there. The book covers what to do when strapping a large weapon to your back. It does not cover lead footwear. Characters interact with the world around them, just as you or I do. We plan our careers based on what works already and what we aspire to and what the circumstamnces are at present. Often we seek niches that are available, and we are flexible and adaptable (this is a survival feature of the human species, by the way). If you plan every character developement, every level-up, in minute detail at level 1 to take you to level 20, you are plainly not interacting with the world if you insist on taking it in the face of overwhelming evidence that in your current circumstances it just isn't a good idea (this can be for a great many reasons). Hence, I call it bad role-playing. His character background supports what he is doing, leaving it or not are both legitimate roleplaying options here. On the one hand a sane person would not carry around a useless and large weapon, on the other hand the character is not completely sane in this regard. I will differentiate that it isn't a bad idea to have an idea as to where you want to go. Just don't carve it in stone at level 1. Lugging around a scythe for the hell of it is just damn silly, in my opinion. Picking one up and learning to use on at level 3 is one thing. But why lug one around up until then? Is the character a farmer? What is his reasoning, other than "I plan to take exotic weapon profficency (scythe) at level 3" which is pure matagame?Planning ahead is not metagaming, people do it all the time. Maybe he doesn't think he will be able to get this weapon later on so he's carrying this one around until he can use it. If you change your statement to "I plan to use this scyth someday because scyths are damn cool" it suddenly stops being metagame and starts being a character trait (obsession with death maybe). So if all your players got together and told you as a DM that they felt that in your campaign world undead should not exist (none of them want to play a cleric), epic weapons should be available to 1st level characters priced no more than 20gp, and all CR's they face should be reduced by 3 and experience point gains multiplied by 10 so they can level up faster, you'd do it? I would tell them that I didn't think it was a good idea and why. If they persisted then I might consider doing it, or I might ask one of them to run the campaign instead. But this is hyerbole anyway, we are talking about not instituting a houserule that is extremely specific and probably not critical to the campaign. This example would dramatically change the entire campaign and is itself a houserule rather than the lack of one. In this particular case it seems that the DM and player styles are at odds. As we cannot assume that any of the other players have a problem with the DM's style, it seems this player is the one who has to take it on the chin or vote with his feet. I'll agree with you on that one! Yes, the kusari-gama is an example (the real one, not the small one represented in the DMG). It was a hard weapon to use (I have practiced with one, trust me on this) and was used because it could be disguised as a common agricultural tool. However the use of a scythe in warfare is not actually in question here, just the encumbrance value of strapping a dirty great agricultural tool to your back and lugging the awkward thing around for no apparently good in-game reason. The encumberance is covered in the rules already. The rules do allow for situational modifiers to such things but what the OP is complaining about is a persistant penalty, not a situational one. If the DM was so upset about the scyth then he should have modified the stats or banned it upfront or at least when the character first showed interest in it.
Mufflon 09-17-06, 09:53 AM	I have been in plenty of 'gritty' D&D games, and they were a lot of fun. Clealry it isn't the style you like, but that does not make it wrong. I don't know what kind of 'gritty' games you have been in, but I certainly don't equate 'gritty' with giving out unreasonable penalties for carrying a scythe on your back. And secondly I much prefer the grittier, sometimes even low-magic, campaigns. Though, in D&D, even what is generally assumed to be 'gritty' games aren't very Realistic. In game, yes. If a player wants to put on lead boots to protect the soles of their feet, I will in fact give them a penalty on their move silently checks even though this is not included in the RAW. <gasp> Terrible aren't I? As for the power-gaming vs role-play argument, that is a question of player style and I'm not even going to go there. I do not see what this absurd example adds to this discussion, so I am simply going to assume that you have no relevant information on this point. If you plan every character developement, every level-up, in minute detail at level 1 to take you to level 20 I said "planning out your character advancement beforehand", not "plan every character developement, every level-up, in minute detail at level 1 to take you to level 20". Pointing out percieved extrems is quite pointless and doesn't add anything further to this discussion. Lugging around a scythe for the hell of it is just damn silly, in my opinion. Picking one up and learning to use on at level 3 is one thing. But why lug one around up until then? Is the character a farmer? What is his reasoning, other than "I plan to take exotic weapon profficency (scythe) at level 3" which is pure matagame? If you had bothered to read the earlier posts you would have noticed that your argument is already proven wrong. Secondly there is no such feat as Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Scythe), nor one called "exotic weapon profficency (scythe)" for that matter... So if all your players got together and told you as a DM that they felt that in your campaign world undead should not exist (none of them want to play a cleric), epic weapons should be available to 1st level characters priced no more than 20gp, and all CR's they face should be reduced by 3 and experience point gains multiplied by 10 so they can level up faster, you'd do it? There are players who'd actually want that?!?Alright let's hypothetically assume that my players had made shuch a request. Heres what I would do: First I'd ask them if this is what they really wanted and explain why I though it was a bad idea. If they still persisted on having the campaign run this way I would most likely seek out another group, rather than forcing my players to play in a campaign they did not like, or myself be forced to DM a campaign I did not like. The idea that a DM should, like so many oppresive governaments, look only to his, or her, own enjoyment and ignore the whishes and ideas of the player is horrifying. Yes, the kusari-gama is an example (the real one, not the small one represented in the DMG). It was a hard weapon to use (I have practiced with one, trust me on this) and was used because it could be disguised as a common agricultural tool. I am not certain what purpose this comment servers, other than to brag about your Martial Arts training. However the use of a scythe in warfare is not actually in question here, just the encumbrance value of strapping a dirty great agricultural tool to your back and lugging the awkward thing around for no apparently good in-game reason. Actually it is, since OravennasBrother quite cleary questioned it. This is something you would have been unable to miss, had you read the earlier posts.
kelvinaw273 09-17-06, 04:39 PM	I have just had a brainwave. To the OP: here is your solution! 1) dismnount the blade from your scythe handle, wrap carefully and place in your backpack. 2) throw away the handle 3) when you get to level 3, take 1 point in Craft (weapon). Take 20 on crafting a new handle for your scythe, because you are likely to have enough wood wherever you end up at the time. Problem solved ....