As the title says. By what I mean by morph lets just say you havean adventure with a +1 Longsword in it as treasure. If the PCs find it but none of them use a longsword do you turn it into a weapon they actually want?
Generally I do not. In my current campaign I have the folowing weapons that the PCs use.
+1 Spear named scorch. 1/day it can fire a scorching ray. No one in the party uses spears as primary weapons so the fighter uses it at range and as a thrown weapon.
+1 Longsword. The War Cleric is using this as a two handed weapon for 1d10 damage. A +1 1d10 damage weapon is still better than a non magical 2d6 weapon.
+1 Halberd that is intelligent and heals the wielder. This weapon did morph as ran a 3rd ed adventure and ranseurs do not exist in 5E.
+1 Dagger fimbric refluffed longsword from the playtest materials Isle of Dread. This weapon did morph from a longsword but the PC using it would prefer a +1 shortsword. I wanted a wepaon with some special powers that would not warp the game as such.
+1 Shortsword of Speed intelligent weapon allied with the intelligent halberd. Did not morph currently used by the Bard who is not a valorious bard. She still wades into melee with it.
So that is my 5 magic weapons only 2 of them the PCs would actually want in an ideal world and both of them are intelligent weapons with drawbacks. Personally I am more likely to hand out a weapon with effects on a "lesser" weapon than I am on a Longword, Greatsword, Greataxe etc as it helps keep the cheese effect down. It also means PCs will actually use weaker weapons instead of the rapier, longsword, shortsword, longbow and whatever the best two handed weapon is for their concept.
Any weapon to exotic is unlikely to be found as a magical variant in realtion to other weapons. Longswords, daggers, short swords and spears are more common than magical rapiers, sabers, polearms, darts, lances and katanas etc.
If I screw up a weapon and it is to powerful like that halberd which might cause probelms there are multiple ways of dealing with it in game, theft, destruction, the items ego making it to difficult to reliably use etc.
I tend to do some tailoring of items for my party, but I don't change an item once the party has found it (unless changing is actually a trait of the item).
I tailor the rewards to the party before handing them out. If a player is unhappy with a given item, the PC can always take the time to find a broker to sell or trade the item for her. The broker charges a fee (which increases as the power and rarity of the item increases) and takes possession of the item as part of the contract, and it'll usually take at least 3 months to get a decent price for a lower end permanent magic item. Higher end items can take as long as 12-36 months.
I like giving magical properties to weirder, lesser-used weapons. Then they don't feel left out. (Huh... That sounds weirder to me when I write it down.) What would a magic whip do? Or a magic blowgun? I guess part of me feels like making the magic weapons be the unpopular choices helps balance out the fact that they're magic, so I feel more comfortable giving them out at lower levels.
On a related note, is it true that the playtest materials have all been made public with the release of the finished product? Because if so, seriously check out the "Magic Item Details" section in the PDF of the same name. It lets you give even the blandest of magic items, like the generic +1 sword, fun little quirks and minor properties along with hints about its origin and original purpose for being made. For example( rolling on the four provided tables right now), a sword that was forged by a powerful celestial mage to be the key to a magically-sealed door somewhere. It bears the mage's personal sigil and glows faintly, and for some reason the bearer feels a sense of distaste on first touching or handling the item, and continues to sense foreboding or discomfort while using or carrying it. Is this just a minor security measure its creator took to discourage other people from handling it( and thereby possibly discovering its nature), or did something truly horrible involving the creator happen in this object's presence, so awful even the things made by that individual's magic feel it? Whatever the case may be, it's hard to deny that this sword is quite an elegantly crafted weapon, only half as heavy as a typical one of its kind. Its worrysome vibe is juxtaposed by its hilt's beautifully etched feather-and-sunburst motif, and whatever uneasiness this thing invokes to its holder, it's far more distasteful to fiends and other creatures of malicious nature.
Wasn't that neat? I got that whole thing just by rolling on the Creator, Nature, Minor Properties, and Quirks tables, which gave me Celestial, arcane, key, and repellant, respectively. This stupid +1 sword is now potentially a hook for an entire sidequest or plot element! This stuff better be in the DMG.
Magic is supposed to be rare and wonderous in 5e. As such, I do not change the items, as finding a magic item should be a defining point in the characters development. In other words, I expect my players to tailor their characters to some extent to the items that are found rather than the other way around.
4e had a low-level ritual called transfer enchantment which let you move the enchantment from one thing to another thing that could have the same enchantment. It let players use the weapons they want for their character without them impractically finding them randomly all the time. It is very easy to import into the game and would not break any realism or game mechanics.
As others have said... magic should be rare. Morphing weapons or armour also strains believability. Doing so prior to the party finding them, makes the DM essentially picking who gets a weapon and doing so after the it is found is just silly.
Any magical item is useful. Most simply weapons are usable by any party member. The few that can't use them (such as wizards and sorcerors) probably aren't at any big loss if they don't find a magical staff, dagger, or crossbow -- their spells are likely as good. Any martial class can use a magical weapon. Further, any character can use it -- just without their proficiency penalty. In 5E, the simplied weapon system means it is a lot less likely that someone can't use a weapon. The only issue is typically it isn't their prefered weapon.
I personally don't care if it isn't their prefered weapon. If a fighter has is facing a werewolf and needs a magic weapon... I'm sorry he has to use a magical great sword rather than his long sword and shield. It's only for one combat every few sessions and he can use his sword and shield the rest of the time. If you keep magical items rare enough... most players are happy to have some weapon against the werewolf when they need it.
Players also have the opportunity to possibly exchanging the weapon. Magic is valuable. If they go to a large enough city, spend time advertising, researching, wait long enough, etc. maybe if they keep returning to the city, after four months, there is person willing to exchange the magical great sword for a magical short sword. Finally, players may have the option of selling the item. They certainly won't get full price for it and, again, it may take some time, but ultimately a group might easily get three warhorses, some barding, and some military saddles if they unload the magical greatsword quickly. Maybe a temple would take it in return for a raise dead or a high level wizard for a teleport to some distance place.
No. If nothing else, magicalness is one of the few features that can make an otherwise underappreciated weapon useable. If weapons morph to a player's preferred fighting style, you might as well just go back to the magic shop.
It also shouldn't matter anywhere near as much in 5E, there are very few classes that rely on using a specific weapon type. There are many for which a particular weapon type is optimal, but to me that's an argument against morphing, not for it. I mean I'm sure the Great Weapon Fighter would rather get a Magical Greatsword than a Magical Greataxe because blah blah lower average greater variance blah blah, but they're perfectly capable of using the greataxe/
On an unrelated note, I think a morphing weapon would be pretty awesome. You need a bow? Bam! Enemies closing in? Shift it into a greatsword! Swallowed by a beastie? Dagger time!
It was probably made by a wizard who specializes in transmutation. That or it has the soul of a Skinwalker bound in it.
Magic items in my games don't morph. In more item-dependant editions (3e/4e), I tended to make sure that items fit characters both aesthetically and mechanically, and in high-magic 5e I'll tend to provide ways to keep sentimentally important equipment competitive with magic loot. But on the whole I'm delighted to be free of the tyranny of assumed enhancement bonuses.
In 4e, sure - if you didn't, there was a low-level ritual for it, anyway, and PCs needed the enhancement bonuses to keep up.
5e, no, I don't even plan to place magic weapons, at all. No need for 'em.
As people have said, unless it is explicitly a morphing weapon and that's at least part of its magic, then no.
So, perhaps I'm about to reveal my bias about how games ought to run here, but "characters ought to tailor themselves to some extent to the magic items they find" (not a direct quote, but I think a good paraphrase) just about makes my blood run cold. I can't think of a more appalling way to approach character style or development. The panoply of a character - their weapons, their armor, their equipment and mount and companions and pets and whatever else is part of that character - exists to serve and advance that character's story. Toronado exists as a personality in the Zorro stories to compliment Zorro, not for Zorro to be defined around. Even the One Ring is, ultimately, a tool for testing and exploring the Ring-bearers and the characters around them. It may have bigger world-building meaning, but its narrative importance is as the burden Frodo carries or the tool Bilbo uses.
Character ought to dictate setting, plot, NPCs, items. Always. That doesn't mean that you let the player dictate those things, because players often don't know what they want until they see it, but you take the player's input and you assess the characters in your group and then you build everything you put in their way around that.
At least, that's what I think makes for the best kind of storytelling. YMMV.
Surely the one ring is a perfect counter-argument, though. The one ring is a tool for testing and exploring the ring-bearers and the characters around them, those characters are literally defined by how they react to the ring.
Of course ironically you could make a reasonable case that the One Ring when it appeared in the Hobbit actually was a character-specific morphing magic item. I mean what are the odds that the guy playing the really poorly optimised Halfling Rogue just happened to walk into the bit of the dungeon that contained a Ring of Improved Invisibility. It did wonders for his backstab.
ankiyavon wrote:
There was actually a real morphing weapon ability in 3.5 in one of the splats IIRC. It was a +4 ability IIRC. It sucked because why owuld you buy a weapon with +4 ability that can turn into another type of weapon when you could just buy the weapon you wanted with +4 worth of abilities you wanted. Its not actually a bad weapon ability just bad in 3.5 due to the money=magic items thing.
Since, currently, there's nothing really saying character's "Specialize" in a certain kind of weapon (save polearms I guess), I don't really tailor. I had to do some tailoring back in 3e and 4e due to things like weapon focus, or the fighter's starting options in 4e. But in 5e I feel much less pressure to do so.
I put odd magical items in games to see what the players will do with them. I don't plan in items to match a player's character concept. As far as I'm concerned all magic items are plot items on loan to the PCs. There aren't any magic marts, but magic items do exist and are hoarded or kept as heirlooms, or stashed in vaults for a rainy day. It is possible to learn of their existence and seek them out. So a player whose really set on something may find a way to obtain it, but needs to be willing to work it into the story.
Nope.If my players don't like a weapon, I include a means to sell or trade it.
Changing a magic item to suit a group's desires, displays to the group that you have no idea what they like. Bad precedent.
Although, I have an artifact axe in my game that morphs between greatax, pole axe, battle axe, and throwing axe forms.
DM: You kill the mysterious masked assassin.
Player: Cool! Does he have any good items for a rogue?
DM: He has a magic rapier.
Player: Awesome.
DM: And a magic hand crossbow.
Player: Awesome again! How about his armor?
DM: He's got magic leather armor.
Player: Oh man, this is perfect! I take it all.
DM: When you remove the assassin's armor and mask, you see that he looks exactly like you. Congratulations, you've just killed yourself from the future!
No.
The only 'morphing' I've allowed is in 4e... I allow a player's magic items to scale with them as they advance in level. So if they have a Lvl 2 +1 sword that they found early in a campaign, I allow the weapon to become +2 and perhaps even gain an ability when the time comes for item upgrades. This allows the player to keep his beloved/iconic item... and keeps the 'ye olde majick shoppe' syndrome to a minimum.
"I allow a player's magic items to scale with them as they advance in level. So if they have a Lvl 2 +1 sword that they found early in a campaign, I allow the weapon to become +2 and perhaps even gain an ability when the time comes for item upgrades. This allows the player to keep his beloved/iconic item... and keeps the 'ye olde majick shoppe' syndrome to a minimum."
I did exactly the same thing, working on the idea that the "pluses" were just a metagame math concept, not something that would be measureable or perceptible to the characters. Whether the sword was magic or not, or had a special power or not, would be "in-game" knowledge (and cool); whether the sword was +2 at 6th level or +5 at 24th level wouldn't be.
I may do the same thing in 5th, rather than just giving out better weapons. I don't HAVE to give out magic weapons, I know, bounded accuracy and all. But if a player really likes a particular weapon or it's become iconic to the character, I would rather scale it a little than either give them nothing else or force them to change. It would certainly be a much slower scaling though, even at 20th level it wouldn't be more than +3.
With bounded accuracy, a +1 weapon is just as nice at 20th level as it is at 1st level. In both cases it gives +5% chance to hit. I know it can be hard to reshape the thinking that 3.5e/4e pushed into everyone, that a 20th level character is expected to have +N items, but in 5e, this is simply not the case.
Bumamgr
"Expect" is not the same as "Nice to have".
If I give a player a +1 sword at 4th level, there is no mathematical game balance reason that I have to give them a bigger plus over the next 16 levels of play.
On the other hand, the player will probably ENJOY it if I do give their weapon a power increase.
That, to me, is the strength of the bounced accuracy concept. You can give the players toys because it makes them happy, not because they fall behind the curve if you don't.
Ghaliyah wrote:
Some counterpoints to the approaches above:
1. Several noted that magic is rare, so if you stick with just giving out the item as listed and it isn't something very usable by the party, then they have basically lost out on the rare occasion that they get magic, and that doesn't seem productive.
2. This situation really seems to just be about official modules, but what about if you are running your own created scenario? Are you really going to bother dropping in a magic item that isn't worthwhile to your party? That doesn't seem very productive either.
3. I get that there is less focused weapon needs in this version, but there still are some. E.g., the great weapon fighter needs a two-handed weapon and isn't going to be excited by the magic whip, the DEX based fighter needs a finesse weapon and isn't going to be excited by the magic trident, etc. And there are certainly examples of weapons that will find no use in party, even if magic, so is it productive to just hand it out as such? Probably not.
4. Balancing out the useful items in a party is probably worth considering. E.g., if you run through a module and a magic longbow and a magic longsword show up, the party ranger might be the only one who would get much use out of it (based on certain party makeups), so if you then move on to the next module and it hands out yet another weapon only really useful to the party ranger, while the rest of the party finds none of the prior weapon handouts of use, does it make sense to hand it out as-is? Probably not.
If a magic item is clearly not too useful to a party, unless the intent is for it to be illiquid cash loot, then DMs should at least consider modifying it prior to giving it out, particularly given the limited amount of magic to be found in this system as well.
As for me, I prefer no-need-for-magic-item fantasy game genres, like Conan, etc., but if one is playing D&D, one should expect to find a couple of useful items over time, it's part of the nature of the game.
I always give PC's stuff they can use and/or want to use. Even if I ran a published adventure, I'd still alter and reskin anything and everything I felt like.
If no one uses a warhammer, I don't put a +1 warhammer in the potential treasure hoard. Now, that doesn't mean I won't alter things slightly; ie: have a rogue find a magic short sword over a magic dagger. Or have a monk get a magic +X to AC tattoo instead of bracers of defense.
I am also fond of an idea I stole from the old Xbox game, D&D Heroes. 'Ancestral Weapons' (what the video game called them). Basically, it's a magic item that is bonded to the PC, and it unlocks abilites/powers/higher bonuses as you level, so there's never a reason to get rid of it, and there's many reasons to go on an adventure to get it back if it gets lost, stolen, or broken.
I'm kind of handing out magic items like candy as each PC now has a magic weapon and one of them has 2 along with assorted rings, cloaks etc. Most of them are not very powerful though or ideal to the PCs concept. I may have screwed up with one of the items but I will either deal with it in game or let the PC enjoy his candy for the next 10 levels he will not find a better weapon.
More or less learned that in AD&D you may get a great weapon (+3 or +4 + abilities) at low levle but that weapon is so good you do not find any better weapons for a long time.
Bumamgar wrote:
Having magic items rare in the world doesn't restrict your ability to hand out lots of items to the players. The PC's, after all, are usually plundering places that are more likely to be where magic items end up. The rarity argument is just about how easy it is to buy, sell or trade magic items.
I've handed out a magic trident in a campaign before. The PC's where actually exporing a underwater kingdom. The trident shot lightning bolts. No player argued that the trident didn't match their prefered weapon. It definitely had many uses.
Wuzzard wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
I'm currently on the design phase for the second magic item I intend to introduce to my campaign - the Sunsword. A blade created with the specific purpose of killing the Vampire, Strahd von Zarovich, but captured by Strahd before it could be used. Strahd could not destroy the sword's magic, but could isolate its power in its hilt then disassemble it, removing the blade from the hilt and shattering it. Strahd was later cursed to sleep by D'hmir Gul, Witch of the Stars, and her two spiritual sisters (a fiendish witch and a fey witch). D'hmir took Ravenloft for herself, and it will be in the process of taking the castle from her than my players will find the hilt.
The hilt will socket any sword blade, and function as a minor magic item. So it can be a rapier, katana, longsword, scimitar, shortsword... whatever the playera decide to have forged for it. But to get its true power, one must learn the sacred writing that was on the original blade and forge a new one with that writing, and perform a ritual to bless the new blade. Only then will the Sunsword have its true power and be able to kill Strahd.
Bumamgar wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
I have been working with an idea though where every character and most major NPCs will have a signature weapon, armor, shield or item that can grow with them. By grow with them i mean it will rarely and occasionally grow another power somehow usually through an adventure. The characters never know if the new ability is temporary or permanent. I do this so if the new ability is just OP or unfun, there's an easy way to remove or change it.
Zardnaar wrote:
So long as you're not obvious about it, go ahead. There was a game I was in once where the loot was "and a magical... what weapon does your guy use?"
Luke-Lightning wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
If I "morphed" it, you'd never know.
My general approach in D&D 5e is to make the acquisition of such things a specific quest the players can undertake at their leisure that I'll generate at the time they indicate interest.
Player: "I really want a magical sword."
DM: "Yes, and there is the famous blade Deadfoe which all the bards sing about because it's easy to find words that rhyme with it. In what fantastic and dangerous location do the bards say the blade was lost again?"
Player: "The Halls of Doom... in the Mountains of Ugh."
DM: "Yes, and it's only one perilous journey away from where you are now. Word is the place is overrun with orcs - the parts that aren't protected by devious traps and wards, that is."
Player: "Excellent! We can take up a quest to go there next."
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
So far I haven't given out any magic weapons, only magic items. But no, I don't have them morph. If a character can't/won't use it, that's their issue/problem. I do try to make all my items pretty widely useable though.
Zardnaar wrote:
Putting a magic weapon NOBODY uses, and then throwing in an enemy that needs a magic weapon - or even THAT magic weapon - can be a fun change.
I will say, the 4E "Transfer enchantment" ritual did make this a non-problem. It's been handy in my 4E campaign a few times. I wonder if something like it is going to be in the DMG rules on creating magic items?
Bumamgar wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Here is how I solve this problem in my games.
All weapons can be magical. They have the potential within them, but must undergo some ordeal before their magic potential is unlocked. Sometimes this requires a ritual (bath the weapon in the fires of Mt. Doom!), sometimes it is triggered by an epic event (you hurl your spear into the belly of the Blue Dragon, piercing its heart and slaying it!), while others are discovered by accident.
One way to unlock the potential of one of your weapons is to "feed" it the magical essence of other magic weapons. By disenchanting magic weapons (casting dispel magic as a ritual can do this), you can apply the magical essence to another weapon (casting magic weapon as a ritual while utilizing the material components from the old magic weapon). After enough magic has been fed into the mundane weapon, it begins to take on magical properties.
This way the fighter can use the same heirloom weapon he had from character creation for 20 levels.
I hate the D&D christmass tree where sentimental weapons get tossed for a +1 bonus to hit and damage.
Ghaliyah wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Partial morphing, yes. Say about 15% of the time.
MechaPilot wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
The problem isn't individual weapons morphin', it's when the players combine ALL of their weapons into the Ultra Mega-Zord.
It is SO hard to balance encounters for that.
In response to the OP, I don't know if they "morph" so much as they're intentionally placed. If I have a longsword-wielding Fighter, and the remainder of the party is a mace-wielding Cleric, a staff-wielding Wizard and a dagger-wielding Rogue, I'm probably not going to put a +1 Scimitar there, as the game doesn't seem well-equipped to handle a magic item economy like 3.5 did. Magic items are topping out at +3 on enhancement bonuses (so far at least). I get the overall impression that magic is supposed to be fairly rare in 5E, at least as far as items go.
At the same time, I think items will morph in relation to size. Magic armor was probably made for a generally Medium-sized creature, and if the Fighter happens to be a halfling... well, that armor becomes halfling sized. It "feels" magical, and causes no harm to the game to throw in that flavor element (whereas telling the only one who can wear that armor "Sorry, it doesn't fit you, but you can drop several hundred gold to have it reforged and re-enchanted if you like!" winds up just frustrating the player).
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
You would not believe how many Magical Axes my Greatsword wielding Fighter found. 
Ghaliyah wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
If a player continuously makes sub-optimal (mechanically) in-game decisions to further a vision of their character concept (such as refusing to wield a magical weapon that doesn't fit with their concept), I would find a way to reward that player for good role-playing, assuming they weren't actually just being pouty and lame about it. In other words, it really just depends on how they actually act. There is no 'one-size-fits-all' answer to this problem.
My default assumption is that magic is rare and wondrous and a bit random, since finding a rapier +1 in the lair of the white dragon just because you happen to be a swashbuckling rapscallion strains credulity too much for me. However, if the player of said rapscallion chooses not to use the (mechanically similar) shortsword +1 because it goes against the law of the open sea or whatever, I'd make a point of giving that character some inspiration and otherwise reward their good role-playing. I also might decide, especially if they are really sincere about the role-play, to have them starting hearing rumors about where a magical rapier might be found and have their good role-play end up being an adventure hook that leads the party on a wild ride that ultimately might result in the character getting the magical reward (or might end in them all drowning in the depths of the sea, who knows!)
Keep in mind, my 'mindset' as it were, is the result of playing with a relatively limited set of players over the years. Yes, the individual members of the group have changed several times and so forth, but maybe I've played with as many as 50 different people? So I can't begin to claim that my way is the one-true-way, but I will say that my magic item allocation style has not driven anyone away from my table yet. I also will admit to ruling according to the expectations of the system, such that when I DM'ed for 4e for several years, I actually asked my players for loot wish lists and crafted 'treasure parcels' that ensured that everyone got items from their list, and also made sure that the item distribution was evenly spread between the players. That was the 4e style and I conformed, although it never really felt right to me, and I am glad for 5e's harkening back to the older method of 'here's a magical broom and you'll like it!' style of treasure allocation.
I have also found on not an insignificant number of ocassions, randomly found items have ended up leading to very memorable game sessions, either due to the players using them (against character concept) to great effect, or due to characters finding creative, non-conventional uses for some of the more oddball items on the random tables. I like a dynamic and creative game, and I find that feeding directly into a players pre-planned character concept tends to stifle the dynamic and surprisingly fun chaos that, to me and the people I often play with, seperates a memorable session from a boring one.
Magi_theKid wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
I'm just going to make a comment
The worst types of magical items? All the enhancement ones. I don't even consider these to be magical weapons
If you're going to give me a magical weapon, give me a magical weapon. A sword that detects the presence of enemies. A sickle that steals the souls of those I kill and converts their souls into essence for dark rituals. Chains torn from the Underworld that chill enemies with their unworldy presence. Give me something magical. A rapier that's just nicer than other? Well woopity woo, what's the difference to any old rapier?
Ghaliyah wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
We need two separate terms for this discussion, or one term and a workable way of expressing degree.
One word for "Item chosen, or table for creating item chosen, based on a worldview with no specific end user in mind".
And one term for "Item chosen specifically for a particular end user".
Ghaliyah wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
We need two separate terms for this discussion, or one term and a workable way of expressing degree.
One word for "Item chosen, or table for creating item chosen, based on a worldview with no specific end user in mind".
And one term for "Item chosen specifically for a particular end user".
Deja vuuuuu....
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
For Adventurer League play, I think so far I've only seen magic Longswords and Staffs. I wonder how this will affect the PCs that people bring...
DemoMonkey wrote:
A secondary point here, I think, is that a big part of whether it's sensible to tailor items (to player needs, to avoid confusion) probably comes down to the wider context of the game.
As far as I'm concerned, if the players descend into the tomb of Hagar the Hammerer, first Hammer-Lord of the Hammer-Clans, then they shouldn't be surprised if any magic weapons they find take the form of hammers. But the flipside of this is that as far as I'm concerned players would only be going into the tomb of Hagar the Hammerer in the first place because they had actively chosen to.
If you're playing the sort of game where players are expected to go into whatever dungeons present themselves, without ever deciding to - say - go looking for somewhere they might be able to find appropriate magic items then tailoring becomes much more important. That becomes a matter of courtesy, it becomes "we accept that we will go into the tomb of Hagar the Hammerer because that's the adventure you have prepared, but be aware that I would really like to find a magical rapier for my swashbuckler".
At which point it turns out that by a strange etymological coincidence, the Hammer-clans actually take their names from the old dwarvish word "Hakh'mer" which means "long thin bladed weapon".
I'm super stingy with magic items, never just toss them out, and when characters do gain them, they make sense within "the story"; more tailored items can be bequeathed, or made for a character, or quested for (or still found by accident, if it makes sense).
GothicSilencer wrote:
It doesn't really seem to be addressed here, but there are two different situations, one being published adventures and the other being homemade. In homemade, if the PCs get to choose where they go, they may choose to go to the hammer caves presumably in search of a magic hammer. But in published adventures (and perhaps homemade that are more DM-directed than PC-chosen), items may be preset and not applicable to a particular idiosyncratic arrangement of your party, and the DM should consider adjusting those to items appropriate to the party.
My uncle's dwarf fighter used a greataxe starting out. (This was pre final PHB - playtest packet stuff - so no GWM feats, etc.)
When they found the legendary dwarven warhammer, he took to using it and a shield. Loves it. Hasn't looked back.
So, although I do tend to semi-tailor magic items to fit the group thematically, I don't always make them "ideal".
This is tailoring...
You're all wrong.