Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Undrhil Mar 22, 2015 16:54:58	So, my character is in a group playing through Rise of Tiamat and recently went through Hoard of the Dragon Queen.   He acquired a greatsword that leans towards evil tendencies and wants my character to kill things.   Once per day, I make a CHA save to avoid having the sword take over my body.   Well, today, I had my shield out and was using my Pact weapon as a Warhammer.  We started combat and I rolled my CHA save for the sword's blood lust.  I failed the save.   So, on my turn, I declared that I used my action to doff my shield and ready the sword.  My DM said that I could just drop the shield and I said, "No.  According to the armor table in the PHB, it's an action to don or doff a shield."  He said that table is for equipping and unequipping the shield, but that I could keep the shield on my arm and still swing the greatsword.   Anyway, we went back and forth with this and finally I just said "My character doffed his shield.  Done."  We went on.  Was I wrong?   I should also point out that this is in the Organized Play Adventurer's League, which limits DM freedom 'slightly'.  I'm pretty sure DMs still have to follow the rules in the books, though.
#2 Coredump00 Mar 22, 2015 17:29:59	Yes  you were wrong, because the DM said it could be done, therefore......it could be done.   Plus, you were holding up a bunch of other folks while you argued with the DM about it.   Now, if you want to discuss the propriety of the DM ruling....  I think it is a grey area in the rules, and thus a valid place to make a ruling.  You attributed two different rulings to the DM... I do not think you can keep the shield on  your arm and still use the greatsword.  OTOH I have no problem with you dropping the shield as a free action, assuming it is dropped onto the ground and not 'put away'   Now, aside from that, there is no reason you need to take a daily Cha save because of the sword. There should be a number of steps before a save is needed.
#3 jaelis Mar 22, 2015 17:40:00	The book says doffing a shield is an action. It also says you carry a shield in one hand, while a two-handed weapon requires two hands to use. So those are the book answers.
#4 Noctaem Mar 23, 2015 6:28:53	jaelis wrote:
#5 QwertyAzerty Mar 23, 2015 7:38:56	I still have difficulty to understand DM who are out there to screw the party.   The DM role is NOT to kill the party, is to tell a story where the player are the heros, yes he need to challenge them, but not outright kill them and houseruling stuff to make it easier to kill them. The DM is suppose to be there to make the game fun for hte player, and sorry it's not MY definition of fun to see my character taking away from me because I accepted to take this greatsword as a magic item, and since it's not a curse item you cannot remove the curse and get rid of it, it's a legit permanent item, that some bad DM enjoy transforming into a unbreakable curse item.   The sword is evil ok yes, yes if you have a conflict with the sword the sword could technically try to possess you. But Evil do NOT mean to kill eveything in sight (that is Chaotic Evil, being evil for the only purpose to be evil). Neutral Evil is killing stuff when it serve you. And there is different level of evil. The tyrant who drill his men harshly and pillage the conquered village and **** the women, is evil, but he his not as evil as the evil tyrant who kill innocent baby from his own village to bath in there blood. Then there is Lich who need to consume souls to stay alive, and who need to do he most deprave act imaginable by the twited mind of the Game Developper to become a Lich. Yes the level of evilness is up to the DM since no official answer as been release yet, but this do not mean that the sword require to be bath in paladin and innocent baby blood every morning. The difference between the good cop and the evil cop who shoot the bandit, the evil cop enjoy doing it and will sleep soundly tonight, the good cop will keep asking himself if he could have done it differently and will stay awake thinking about it for a while until he realised that he had no other choice and MIGHT even have to visit a spychologue and MIGHT even develop PTS.   So for example when I took possession of that sword, I explain to the sword that if the sword do not help me bring the dragon cult down, the sword will be brought as a gift to Tiamat and will be lock in Tiamat treasure and rust there. The only use it could maybe see is as a tooth pick to clean Tiamat teeths. So now the sword is willingly helping me since it in it's best interest stop the cult and as long that I show the sword that I'm the best weilder it can have he will help me and give me all it's power. And I socket in 50% of my treasure share into it's scabbard to increase it's prestige (so now he rest in a scabbard that is worth around 5000 GP.
#6 Kalani Mar 23, 2015 8:02:38	Firstly, to be charmed by the weapon, all of the following must occur.   You must lose an opposed Charisma (charisma) check You must ignore its demands (see below). In retaliation for ignoring its demands, it attempts to charm you. This is a DC 12+Charisma modifier check. If any one of those things failed to happen, the DM steamrolled you. If you lose the charisma check (not to be confused with a saving throw), the item makes one of the following demands.    Item Demands The item insists on being worn/carried at all times The item demands its owner gets rid of items it finds repugnant The item demands the wielder pursue its goals to the exclusion of all others The item demands to be given to someone else. It is only if you ignore said demand that it can attempt to take over. Furthermore, Hazirawn's charisma and special purpose are undefined and as such, taking this route is extraordinarily unfair. At best, I would recommend giving Hazirawn +0 modifiers to all of its checks making this a +0 Charisma (Charisma) check, and a DC12 Charisma save.   When I roleplay Hazirawn I ignore the section on sentient items completely, as Hazirawn lacks sufficient information to make this work. Instead, I simply roleplay Hazirawn as a jerk that talks disrespectfully to its owner, speaks at inappropriate moments (such as when hiding), reveals party secrets to the enemy (during social encounters) and refuses to be attuned. It encourages the PC to take evil and self-serving acts (such as fleeing his comrades and leaving them for dead), and keeps challenging anyone it considers worthy of wielding it (in the hope that the PC will die and it can claim a new master).
#7 Coredump00 Mar 23, 2015 9:15:56	I am always amazed at how many people here can read minds, even from a distance from someone they have never met.... incredible really.   Despite claims to the contrary.... we have no way of knowing that the DM is trying to screw anyone over.  It is quite reasonable to assume that 'doffing a shield' includes putting it away somehow. Similar to sheathing a sword, or hanging an axe at your belt.  Thus there would be a difference between 'doffing' a shield and simply 'dropping' a shield.  To assume this is only because the DM is trying to screw someone over is absurd.   Now, lets see what is qualified as 'screwing over' the PC. The PC will not be doing almost *4 times* as much damage... and people here are upset because the DM is *Not* making the PC lose an entire round of attacks.  Yes, the PC would miss out on a round of attacks by having to spend an action on the shield.... but the DM is letting him get his full Attack Action instead...man, what a mean and hateful DM he must be....   The PC gets his full attacks doing 4X the damage... TPK here we come!!       Now that aside, as I said above, not sure how or why you are just rolling every day for being 'taken over'.  That really doesn't match the guidelines for Sentient magic items. If you don't have the DMG, check our Kalani's post, its pretty spot on.  If anything, it overplays the issue.  EX. even if you don't give into the demands, trying to 'take over' is only one of the three options presented.
#8 QwertyAzerty Mar 23, 2015 9:30:19	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #8) Coredump00	QwertyAzerty wrote:
#10 jaelis Mar 23, 2015 11:14:00	Have to say, my impression was that the sword was going to force the character to attack his friends. If so that delay of a round could be fairly significant...
(Reply to #10) Undrhil	jaelis wrote:
(Reply to #11) Coredump00	Undrhil wrote:
#13 Ravix Mar 24, 2015 0:43:08	Yes to Doffing taking an action and I do not agree with what he's having you do with it.   He doesn't just get to make up arbitrary crap because he doesn't like that you have a sword, not only that but it makes for a shitty experience when your DM is forcing your character to PK others.
#14 Byakugan01 Mar 24, 2015 1:29:55	What is funny about this thread is that PCs basically act like sociopaths in organized play.  they are surrounded by death and killing.    Hazirawn couldnt ask for a better home than the hands of a PC adventurer.    Ask yourself how many people his previous owner was actually killing?  His job was to take a circuitous route to the middle of nowhere just to deliver someone else's treasure.      Even if you go with posession stuff, 'bathing in blood' is not the same thing as killing something.  You could cut yourself, you could hunt a rabbit, you could just be an adventurer and act like 'normal'.  You could have a caster summon something that bleeds...lots of ways to feed a DM troll.
#15 Undrhil Mar 24, 2015 5:34:32	As I said, for the first session, I arranged for an extra horse at one stop per day while we were travelling.  The party druid didn't care for that tactic, but it kept me from having to worry about being made to attack the party or, worse, peasants once we arrived at our destination.
(Reply to #15) Coredump00	Undrhil wrote:
#17 Kalani Mar 24, 2015 8:14:20	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #17) Coredump00	Kalani wrote:
#19 Undrhil Mar 25, 2015 5:31:23	I'm going to talk to the DM about it.  Let him know that I am not happy with the way the sword is being used and will try to work it out in-game between my character and the sword first.  If that doesn't work, there's a really deep well in the room near where we ended our last session that I can drop the sword down and be done with it.  The bonus to attack and damage is not worth the aggravation of being forced (or enticed) to attack the other party members.
#20 QwertyAzerty Mar 25, 2015 12:22:38	Like I said, I love my hazirawn sword, me and Hazirawn are able to achieve feat that many hero on the realm envy. Hazirawn in my hand get his ego feed and he's SOOO happy to be wield by such an experience and great fighter. killing dragon in a single round, turning hte tide of a battle by simply using my action surge. Hazirawn and me are a great team in this adventure and I will ask my DM to create some additional content based on Hazirawn back story because I love this character and Hazirawn made a HUGE difference.   Like I told my DM, if I had to choose between a greatsword +2 dealing an extra 2d6 necrotic damage, or a sentient greatsword+2 dealing en extra 2d6 necrotic damage, I will alway choose the sentient weapon, because it add depth to the sotry, to the character and make it so much more fun, but if the DM do everyting to make Hazirawn useless and a burden to the point wher etheplayer want to loose teh sword in a deep well... then this is no fun, this is a really big miss opportunity to create something big.
#21 Kalani Mar 25, 2015 13:51:58	Undrhil wrote:
(Reply to #21) Undrhil	Kalani wrote:
(Reply to #21) QwertyAzerty	Kalani wrote: