The FAQ has been updated with questions relating to:
Hazirawn
Random Treasure
DM rewards
For some reason, the new FAQ update was posted on the main site
http://dndadventurersleague.org/
Normally they are posted here:
http://dndadventurersleague.org/category/faq/
Since starting this thread, I have added the new FAQ entries to the complete FAQ
http://dndadventurersleague.org/sage/index.php?title=Frequently_Asked_Questions_(FAQ)
You should include a link to the FAQ :p
The random treasure ruling is straightforward, no problems there.
The ruling regarding DM rewards is simply confusing -- how exactly do you create a Tyranny of Dragons character with the Elemental Evil story origin, which is what the answer seems to be suggesting? A simpler answer would be to simply say "No, characters with the Tyranny of Dragons story origin cannot receive the DM award given for running the Elemental Evil Encounters season -- the award can only be applied to a character with the Elemental Evil story origin."
The Hazirawn ruling is incomplete. While it is nice to see that Hazirawn now officially serves as an example of the ALPG's directive that the DM can use the DMG to help run games, the sword's attributes, senses, and personality are still undefined, so the DM doesn't really have much to do on when trying to determine how to portray Hazirawn except 'it's a Neutral Evil sword that understands Netherese'. If the WotC staff in charge of AL do not want 'official' stats for Hazirawn in Adventurers League (which is the only reason I can think of why such stats wouldn't be included in the FAQ), then it should be noted that, where stats are required, the DM should decide them and have the player note those stats on his adventure log.
--
Pauper
Gah, I meant to but got distracted lol.
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
I don't think it's that great of an idea to have each individual DM roll stats for the weapon. You then end up with players with vastly different Harizawn's from table to table. Just seems silly and gauche.
Noctaem wrote:
Kalani wrote:
To run the sword as written, you basically have the following options:
- It can talk
- It can suppress its attuned properties (+2, 2d6 necrotic, spellcasting).
That's it. It can't do anything else. It can't make a contest of wills, it has no special purpose - it is simply a mouth on a stick.
Even with its attuned properties suppressed, the sword still has the following traits (which, according to Steve Winter - do not require attunment)
- +1 greatsword, 1d6 necrotic, suppresses healing for up to 1 minute*
*It is unclear whether the anti-healing effect is a property that requires attunement, but I give it to my players as a base-property of the sword.
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Pauper wrote:
OrganicDnD23 wrote:
Honestly, I wish they would just errata it to a +1 or +2 greatsword and call it a day. Anything else dramatically overpowers the weapon (equivalent of critting on every hit). They introduced a T4 weapon in T2 play, and that was a mistake. No piece of equipment should ruin the play experience of other players at a table because it completely nullifies combat for everyone else. When I DM I ask players what magical items they have and I ask any player with Hazirawn to treat it as a +1/+2 greatsword.
Disclaimer: I have Hazirawn on two characters.
Okay... I am needing some help here...
Random encounters allow for Experience Points as rewards only, no treasure.
Coredump00 wrote:
I firmly believe that sentient items should not be included in AL.
The amount of variation they create is unhealthy.
Ravix wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
@Pauper - Hazirawn did not receive more fleshed-out details because we didn't feel that it was necessary. 5e is more about the story than the crunch, and by simply saying that the sword is sentient and lawful evil we felt that the blade had enough "in the toolbox" to be useful.
I would love to see creative DMs use the DMG to spice it up, but the weapon is intentionally light on rules and will remain that way. Including the full allotment of intelligent item rulings requires a DM to posess a document that we, as a blanket rule, do not expect. To run an AL game, a DM needs access to the the free downloadable copy of the DMG - and the rules for that type of item do not appear in that document.
I haven't seen a DM shut off the blade on players without just cause, and due to the power of the blade I've seen most DMs interact with it by increasing the encounter difficulty and have just let the character have their shiny MacGuffin. Seems to be working fine!
Thanks for the explanation, warfteiner -- and in light of the DMG not being a required resource for DMs in AL, that does make some sense.
As long as DMs who wish to are allowed to use the DMG to make Hazirawn a fully-fledged intellgent item, knowing full well that other DMs may fall back on the 'Hazirawn-as-written' interpretation, then I'd be a lot more accepting of the ruling as provided.
--
Pauper
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
zagora_01 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
I think its primary motivation would be to find its way into the hands of a creature that shares its alignment (given no other specific motivations are listed). All sentient items desire to be wielded by a creature that shares its ethical and moral alignment whenever possible.
In order of priority, it would be as follows:
- A: Wielder that pursues its special purpose (not applicable)
- B: Wielder that shares its alignment.
- C: Wielder whose alignment is one-step removed.
Priorities (in order of preference)
- A+B
- A+C
- A
- B
- C
As such, it will always try to find a wielder that both shares its alignment and pursues its special purpose.
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
zagora_01 wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
zagora_01 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Not entirely true. It will always seek to resolve B even if C is true (N, CN or LE). It will be more happy with such players than with PCs of other alignments but that doesn't mean it wouldn't still betray them if doing so means it "might" find a NE owner.
I'm so glad Ill never ever see this weapon in one of my games.
I've only been at a single table with the sword, and it was held by a monk. As it was DDEX1-11, there was some in game free time, so my wizard went an attuned to the sword so he could talk to it for a couple of hours. Then he gave it back, because despite his 'easily distracted by promise of information' he had all the info he wanted from the sword.
I don't think the sword should overly interfere with the party, if only because the people sitting down with the sword's player aren't necessarily going to be aware that one of their party members is potentially a major threat to them. I think you (as DM), if you want to get NPC-y with the sword, you should ask the player to justify their story with it to explain why they are able to work together.
Kalani wrote:
Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
The answer to all those questions is - ask your DM. Sorry, I know it's an answer you won't like - but in the absence of an errata detailing its personality - that's all we have.
Kalani wrote:
Sentient items are different from other characters however. Their entire ability to influence their environment comes from being able to coordinate with their owners. As such, they ideally want an owner that shares moral and ethical viewpoints (as there will be fewer contests of will and they will often agree). That or an owner they can easily dominate.
Dominating its owner is out of the question due to the lack of stats. That leaves finding a similar temperament
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
The DM isn't obligated to tell you, as the player, what the sword wants or why -- since it's an NPC, you can interact with the sword 'in character' to learn these things, assuming you are able to persuade the sword to share that information with you. In some circumstances, such as at a convention where adventuring time is limited, I could see a DM asking to set such conversations aside to allow the party more time to achieve its adventuring goals. Outside of game sessions, you might ask the DM if making use of the Researching downtime activity could provide more information on Hazirawn's history and goals.
Of course, even if you are in a situation where having conversations with Hazirawn won't eat up precious adventuring time, you're pretty seriously hampered in your ability to interact with the sword as written; the rules don't specify how to handle a character that doesn't have ability scores, so it's also up to the DM to decide how to handle the situation if you decide to do something that normally would require an opposed check or require the sword to attempt a saving throw.
Kalani's interpretation of Hazirawn's goals is certainly defensible, though -- after all, the party found Hazirawn in the possession of an NPC who shared Hazirawn's alignment (even if the party has no way of knowing that), and there was nothing in the adventure to suggest that Hazirawn was unhappy or displeased with the situation (no specific rules for the encounter in which Hazirawn decided to 'get out' of its current situation by making its wielder easier to defeat, for example).
Just because you get to wield the sword doesn't mean you get to define the sword. It's an NPC, and to the degree that the campaign staff has chosen not to define Hazirawn or its personality, the table DM can (and in some circumstances, probably has to) do so.
--
Pauper
I find it extremely comforting that, having now been at tables involving Hazirawn with 5 different DMs (including three Coordinators and an AL Admin), not a single one of them has cared about the sword in the slightest. Encounter difficulty got adjusted behind the screen, Hazirawn never said a word or did anything to antagonize the PCs, and the adventure ran exactly like it was just an unusually deadly greatsword.
So I'm happy to find my interest in this particular tempest-in-a-teapot rapidly waning.
I am happy to have Hazirawn be available as a DM tool....but the situation/table needs to warrant (and preferably enjoy) it. Not likely to always happen. Or, asCahPahkah indicates, even often 
CahPahkah wrote:
Nope, one of them (there were two at the same table on two occasions) was a Great Weapon Master barbarian.
Complaining about being out-damaged by a PC optimized for greatswords is like complaining about a bard being better at persuasion than your ranger, or complaining that a diviner wizard is better at casting hold person than your monk.
CahPahkah wrote: