| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1ChibikabkiFeb 11, 2015 21:32:25 | Reading through the 5e DMG I am wondering to myself when the sword of Kas changed and why there was such a drastic change. This is certainly not the weapon I remembered so I looked back.
What follows is my observations about the current item, and a sad tale of how the lack of any kind of editor who cares about TSR or lore really hurts the current DnD product.
The oldest description I can find regarding the appearance of the sword of Kas was in 2e. In Vecna Lives (Page 71-72), the Sword of Kas is described as having a rippled outer edge, a magically hardened gold spine, a hilt wrapped in red leather with gold flecks , guards made from pieces of unicorn horns, and with a pommel that resembles a bearded face. It should also be the description of it, it says it was unable to wield its powers against Vecna or Vecnas artifacts. Period.
The powers of the Sword of Kas are described in the 1e DMG (Page 161) as a +6 defender that does double damage to creatures not from the prime material plane. In 2e it was elaborated upon further, keeping the +6 defender and doubel damage but adding a few new base tricks. The biggest element change was non-cannon breaking. Making it powerless against Vecna or any of Vecnas artifacts (Which makes sense as it was created by Vecna).
From a roleplaying perspective, the Sword of Kas is described a being able to dominate its owner from the time of 1e. In 2e it was expanded to dominate its owner to kill Vecna (Despite its inability to actually do so).
Now we jump a few iterations to 5e. On page 226 we get the description for the artifact. What a change we have here. What appears to be a complete different item now appears. First off, according to the picture in the DMG its apparently all black metal now so the appearance does not even remotely resemble the original description.
On the power end, it has been stripped of its defender status (Even though the DMG has a defender in it on page 164). It loses its double damage attribute and gains an extra 2D10 to undead. Additionally it adds a previously nonexistant critical hit. The swords domination of its host is now mitigated by bathing it within blood within 1 minute of being drawn (A strangely factor considering this sword is usable against undead). The swords innate drive to take over a character is now focused not on Vecna but bathing it in blood after a failed save. (A strange choice indeed considering the double damage to undead and its history of opposing Vecna). However we get later an non-mechanical description that it leads characters to oppose Vecna. The largest change to the sword, though is a reversal from Vecna lives. The sword of Kas, once impotent int he fact of Vecna or his artifacts now suffers no penalties and has been elevated to being the singular thing that can destroy the hand and eye of Vecna. Interestingly enough, the sword of Kas can also be destroyed by a simple wish spell with a contested Cha check from a person with both the hand and eye of Vecna (A pretty small feat for anyone who could successfully get both items).
I know WotC could care less about any TSR cannon but that is the birthplace of this concept. It would seem obvious at first that even a junior editor would look at source material to determine if the item in question is even being written about correctly.
Overlooking that previous sin what I find hardest to stomach is the entire theme of the current item is a wreck. The sword of Kas does double damage to undead but at the same time wants to be bathed in blood whenever drawn. This is counter-intuitive on multiple levels. One, Kas was a vampire. Are we to believe that the sword he wielded was specially made by Vecna to kill himself and its wielder? I can just see it now
Vecna: “Hey, Kas you are such a loyal servant that I made you this groovy sword.”
Kas: “Thanks! What does it do?”
Vecna: “It is used for destroying undead.”
Kas: “Dude, Im undead.”
Vecna: “Yeah, but so am I, so its all good right?”
Kas: “What is the practical use of giving me a sword that can kill both of us? Do we have any major undead enemies?”
Vecna: “Nope”
Kas: “But it can still hurt us?”
Vecna: “Duh, but that’s not what I made it for.”
Kas: “Then why did you make it?”
Vecna: “Because its your birthday you big dummy and I’m not a card person.”
Next up, Vecnas level of jerkishness must have been quite high seeing as how he would give a vampire a weapon that required itself to be bathed in blood each time its drawn.
Kas: “Umm I think your sword has a problem.”
Vecna: “Is it too awesome?”
Kas: “No, I made the mistake of pulling it out before feeding tonight.”
Vecna: “Oh, I bet the sword was really cool looking and imposing huh?”
Kas: “No, I hacked the person into pieces and bathed the sword in their blood.”
Vecna: “Oh well that’s just a value-added feature. Cool isn’t it?”
Kas: “It ruined my supper, I kind of drink blood to live.”
Vecna: “That seems highly unlikely. Im sure you can eat something else. Have you tried going vegetarian?”
Third, why make a weapon that does double damage to undead but desires to be bathed in blood? Isnt that something many forms of undead lack?
Kas: “So WHY would you give me a sword that damages undead but every time its pulled it needs to be bathed in blood?”
Vecna: “I fail to see your point…”
Kas: “Every time I pull the damn thing out to attack an undead it makes me want to bathe it in blood.”
Vecna: “And your point is?”
Kas: “I have to carry around victims, everywhere I go in case I want to use it in a battle against an undead. That is quite embarassing.”
Vecna: “Kas, you seem to forget. I am a lich, and the best darn lich at that. I am also the CEO of this entire empire. Are you really going to waste my time with a HR matter? I had to reschedule 2 evil ceremonies just to have this discussion. Surely you can figure this out yourself.”
Kas: “You know what Vecna? I just thought of a great use for this sword!”
Vecna: "Good to hear! I love it when you show initiative. Hey what did you just do to my hand?"
Humor aside. 5e is a good game, and I really do like it. I know WotC has changed a lot of items over the years but this item in particular is not a potion of haste. Its an artifact. One of the most prestigious at that. The fundamental guiding principle of the current sword seems to have been written to be "cool", or "Extreme" with no thought given to proper editing or preexisting cannon. It also suffers from being a grab bag of ideas that lack a single thematic underpinning.
This kind of thing turns my stomach. WotC spent money on a new edition of DnD but very obviously not on a quality editor to QA their product. Either that or they just don’t give a damn and each edition says screw you to the older ones and their cannon.
Maybe they can fix this in future editions of the 5e DMG but I doubt it. I just wished it werent so embarassingly badly designed. |
| #2Lady_AurallaFeb 11, 2015 22:05:52 | The answer is simple...cannon evolves. In this case over the centuries the sword's and Kas's hatred towards Vecna overcame the enchantment that protected Vecna. The alteration in power also slowly changed its physical appearance over time. |
| #3MonsterEnvyFeb 11, 2015 22:22:44 | Um you missed the spot were he sword can boost the users AC.
Anyway It being the only thing that can destory Vecna's artifacts has been around for a long time. |
| #4ShasarakFeb 12, 2015 11:28:45 |
|
| #5melloredFeb 12, 2015 12:30:29 | How many swords did Kas have? How many people where named Kas?
And why would an artifact not change? |
| #6JohnLynchFeb 12, 2015 18:32:23 |
|
| #7ChibikabkiFeb 12, 2015 19:39:24 | Thanks for the heads up on the eldrich wizardry suppliment. Honestly I dont have a copy and had no idea there was a reference to the sword of Kas in there. I still think that thematically the current item is a wreck, but that makes me feel much better about the editors roles in the current iteration of the weapon. |
| #8RamulfFeb 12, 2015 21:22:06 | It has also been a short sword long sword and Two Handed sword in varying editions. |
| #9JohnLynchFeb 12, 2015 21:40:58 |
|
| #10ReiusFeb 12, 2015 22:08:32 | Why water breathing? |
| (Reply to #10)JohnLynch |
|
| (Reply to #11)Reius |
|
| #13JohnLynchFeb 12, 2015 22:26:14 |
|
| (Reply to #13)Reius |
|