Am I justified to say this?

[Alphabetmaster]

One of my players, a wizard, wants to carry around a scythe, because "it's good at killing helpless things."
Seeing as it seemed completely out of character, and felt metagamey to me, I denied him.
Needless to say, he wasn't very happy with me.

Am I within my rights to do this?

[Sandsarecool]

One of my players, a wizard, wants to carry around a scythe, because "it's good at killing helpless things."
Seeing as it seemed completely out of character, and felt metagamey to me, I denied him.
Needless to say, he wasn't very happy with me.

Am I within my rights to do this?

...Why would you deny someone from carrying a scythe? It seems like a perfectly valid weapon to carry around to me, even if a wizard wouldn't necessarily be proficient with it.

[Erit]

Saying that it's "metagamey" to note that scythes are good at executing people is like saying it's "metagamey" to note that greatswords are two-handed weapons.

As far as out-of-character goes, well you haven't given us any measure for that other than your own determination. So far as we can know this wizard wants to play a kind of Necromancer Grim Reaper wannabe and you're just saying no without reason.

By all means, fiat away his ability to spend money on an item that is readily available under normal circumstances in the ruleset; Rule Zero before all else after all. But don't try and mask an arbitrary denial as anything but what it is; doing so leads to bad habits and worse practices.

[Echch]

The obligatory thing out of the way: You are the DM. If you say Pelor is a Demon Prince in your campaign, Pelor is a Demon Prince.

With that out of the way, I don't know why you'd want to do that. It's not like Scythes are even that good. I can see where you are coming from, a Scythe is nothing someone IRL would really use as a weapon (a Warscythe, on the other hand, does have some appeal...), but overall, I'd say there is no reason to ban Scythes.

[TheIronGolem]

Also, why do you think it's "out of character"? More to the point, what makes you better-equipped to decide what's "in character" than the person who (presumably) created that character?

Besides, the only thing that makes a scythe particularly good for "killing helpless things" is the x4 crit multiplier; your player is most likely referring to the fact that you auto-crit when making a coup-de-grace. If a PC is making a CDG, then either a) the meaningful part of the fight is over anyway, or b) they're burning a full-round action to make sure a downed enemy stays down, which is almost always a less efficient use of a turn than just killing another enemy (or ten, since this is a freaking wizard we're talking about).

My point is, your player either isn't trying to powergame here, or is doing it so badly as to have no chance of breaking your game. Let him have the damn scythe already.

[Tvtyrant]

One of my players, a wizard, wants to carry around a scythe, because "it's good at killing helpless things."
Seeing as it seemed completely out of character, and felt metagamey to me, I denied him.
Needless to say, he wasn't very happy with me.

Am I within my rights to do this?

Well I would walk right there as a player and find a different DM, so there is that. You are literally in charge of every aspect of the game except for deciding what a player character's personality and actions are, and players are in charge of nothing but those two things. A DM who needs so much control they start dictating my characters actions to me is one I have no interest in.

[Alphabetmaster]

His backstory makes it seem ridiculous to me, and what he intends to build almost the opposite of a Grim Reaper Wannabe.

I don't know, but scythes have always struck me as fairly ridiculous. By no means would every wizard carry a farming implement around to coup-de-grace fallen foes; scythes are big and bulky and not very wizardly. I asked him if he would rather use a dagger or a sword of some kind, but he refused saying that wizards are generally smarter than everyone, so he would know that they could CDG better than a knife. Scythes are farm implements that can be weaponized, but they are still farm implements.

[Sandsarecool]

His backstory makes it seem ridiculous to me, and what he intends to build almost the opposite of a Grim Reaper Wannabe.

I don't know, but scythes have always struck me as fairly ridiculous. By no means would every wizard carry a farming implement around to coup-de-grace fallen foes; scythes are big and bulky and not very wizardly. I asked him if he would rather use a dagger or a sword of some kind, but he refused saying that wizards are generally smarter than everyone, so he would know that they could CDG better than a knife. Scythes are farm implements that can be weaponized, but they are still farm implements.

Uh... Wha? I think you're messing up real-world logic with D&D logic. In D&D, a Scythe is a Martial Weapon, not a 'farming implement', as you called it. It that universe, it should not be too difficult to know that a Scythe is more effective at CDG'ing than a dagger. There are few people more likely to understand the working of the universe than wizards, so how is it so out of place for a wizard to realise he'd probably have an easier time killing that helpless bad guy with a scythe than with a dagger?

Hell, my Rogues carry a scythe for quick CDG'ing. At high levels, it gets shrunk and tacked on with a returning crystal of some sort.

[Barstro]

I'd say there is no reason to ban Scythes.

For the reasons stated and my own personal feeling that scythes are unwieldy objects that would not be serious weapons given all the better choices (x4 crit multiplier aside) that are readily available, I think there is great reason to ban scythes.

However, that is absolutely no reason to ban scythes for a single character, or any subset. All or nothing; anything else is unfair.

That being said, scythes are a valid weapon by RAW and a rule change against RAW should either be agreed upon by everyone, or the DM had better have a fantastic reason for it. "Preventing a wizard from still being far less capable at coup de grace than probably anyone else in the party" is a crappy reason.

You're the boss, but I think your player is justified in being peeved.

[Inevitability]

I suggest explaining that you don't like the idea of a wizard randomly carrying a scythe around, while encouraging the player to create his own reasons for why he's got one. You can get some really great story hooks that way!

[Mehangel]

One of my players, a wizard, wants to carry around a scythe, because "it's good at killing helpless things."
Seeing as it seemed completely out of character, and felt metagamey to me, I denied him.
Needless to say, he wasn't very happy with me.

Am I within my rights to do this?

Are you within your rights? Yes, but if I was that player, I would walk away and find a new GM (I have little tolerance in a GM telling me what weapons my character can and cannot use, if I did, I would be playing 2nd Edition where clerics could only use bludgeoning weapons, etc).

[Venger]

as others have said, let him have the scythe, it'll have no important effect on the game.

additionally, the illustration in the phb notwithstanding, you know the kinds of scythes used in combat aren't the same ones people use to cut grass, right? (http://www.kultofathena.com/images/AH3518_l.jpg)

[AvatarVecna]

I don't really see what the issue is with allowing a wizard to carry around a bulky weapon they're not proficient in on the off-chance that they find themselves with both the opportunity and desire to Coup De Grace a helpless enemy and none of their allies can do the job better.

[TheIronGolem]

By no means would every wizard carry a farming implement around to coup-de-grace fallen foes

Your player isn't playing every wizard. He's playing his wizard. If he thinks a scythe fits his character concept better than a dagger or sword, then it does.

[stanprollyright]

By all means, fiat away his ability to spend money on an item that is readily available under normal circumstances in the ruleset; Rule Zero before all else after all.


The obligatory thing out of the way: You are the DM. [...] I'd say there is no reason to ban Scythes.


Let him have the damn scythe already.


Well I would walk right there as a player and find a different DM, so there is that.


You're the boss, but I think your player is justified in being peeved.


Are you within your rights? Yes, but if I was that player, I would walk away and find a new GM

No. You are not within your rights.

[Alphabetmaster]

We're a RP heavy, low OP table. A skinny, feeble, bookish wizard may well decide the thing he needs the most on his travels is a large and heavy harvest tool. But it's cheesy, lame, idiotic in every way - and no argument you can conjure up will change that.

Further, Farm implements were never used for weapons because they are impractical in that function. That some game designer included them for style reasons, and gave them anything but abysmally poor stats isn't my problem, and not anything I ever have to contend with.

[Sandsarecool]

We're a RP heavy, low OP table. A skinny, feeble, bookish wizard may well decide the thing he needs the most on his travels is a large and heavy harvest tool. But it's cheesy, lame, idiotic in every way - and no argument you can conjure up will change that.

Further, Farm implements were never used for weapons because they are impractical in that function. That some game designer included them for style reasons, and gave them anything but abysmally poor stats isn't my problem, and not anything I ever have to contend with.

...Are you reading the above posts? I think it's been assumed that the 'Scythe' entry refers to a Military Scythe, not the farming implement.

Certainly, your AVERAGE Wizard wouldn't carry a scythe. By all means, prohibit your Spellcasting NPCs from doing so. Your player is NOT an average person, by any stretch of the imagination. You are using power that isn't rightfully yours to prevent him from doing so. D&D is not your game, it's the game of everybody at the table. If the table does not like a rule, you ARE going past your share of power.

I dare say you seem to be being unreasonable here.

[Echch]

For the reasons stated and my own personal feeling that scythes are unwieldy objects that would not be serious weapons given all the better choices (x4 crit multiplier aside) that are readily available, I think there is great reason to ban scythes.

Eh, in D&D, everything can theoretically be a weapon. This is just one of those weird "it's kinda improvised, but not really"-things, like the Stump/Butter Knife weapon.



additionally, the illustration in the phb notwithstanding, you know the kinds of scythes used in combat aren't the same ones people use to cut grass, right? (http://www.kultofathena.com/images/AH3518_l.jpg)

Isn't that a Warscythe? Warscythes are exempt from what I said: They have been used as weapons, and rather effectively IIRC.

[zergling.exe]

We're a RP heavy, low OP table. A skinny, feeble, bookish wizard may well decide the thing he needs the most on his travels is a large and heavy harvest tool. But it's cheesy, lame, idiotic in every way - and no argument you can conjure up will change that.

Further, Farm implements were never used for weapons because they are impractical in that function. That some game designer included them for style reasons, and gave them anything but abysmally poor stats isn't my problem, and not anything I ever have to contend with.

If you don't like scythes as a weapon, just ban it outright and tell your player that they do not exist. Period. That way you don't have to deny them for not making sense in character.

[Barstro]

If you don't like scythes as a weapon, just ban it outright and tell your player that they do not exist. Period. That way you don't have to deny them for not making sense in character.

Banning something that only one player wants, and no other player, character, NPC, or mook would ever have, is the exact same thing as banning it for just the player.

[TheIronGolem]

We're a RP heavy, low OP table.

And picking a scythe as your weapon is an RP heavy, low OP build choice.


A skinny, feeble, bookish wizard may well decide the thing he needs the most on his travels is a large and heavy harvest tool. But it's cheesy, lame, idiotic in every way

Why is it "cheesy, lame, and idiotic"? Because it doesn't fit your mental image of what a wizard "should" look like?


and no argument you can conjure up will change that.

Declaring that no argument can change your position means that you've already made up your mind and are unwilling to subject your opinion to any critical analysis. That's your prerogative, but it does raise the question as to why you even started this thread asking if you were in the right. Were you just looking for validation here?


Further, Farm implements were never used for weapons because they are impractical in that function. That some game designer included them for style reasons, and gave them anything but abysmally poor stats isn't my problem, and not anything I ever have to contend with.

It is, if you actually want to be a good DM. If you're more interested in being a petty control freak, well you're on the right track for that.

[Alphabetmaster]

It is definitely metagaming for a wizard to carry one (barring the rare death-obsessed necromancer). That is because it is (for most wizards) impossible to explain in character why they're carrying it, and that is because the "killing sleeping people" rule is based on mechanics rather than reality. In real life, it's easier to kill a sleeping person with a knife than with a big honking scythe. Go ahead, google up statistics on knife murders and on scythe murders. Which do you think happens more often?

[AvatarVecna]

We're a RP heavy, low OP table. A skinny, feeble, bookish wizard may well decide the thing he needs the most on his travels is a large and heavy harvest tool. But it's cheesy, lame, idiotic in every way - and no argument you can conjure up will change that.

Even by low-op standards, it's not all that cheesy. By your own admission, he's a feeble wizard; he's probably got a low Strength (maybe even a penalty), and isn't proficient in the weapon (unless he wasted a feat on proficiency). Both the player and the character are deluding themselves into thinking they will actually be effective at wielding such a weapon, which demonstrates to me that they're fitting your group's "low OP" description rather well. You want to know what the in-game justification is? "It's an efficient weapon". The wizard is displaying their high Intelligence as well as their class' reputation of tactical capabilities (even if they're also demonstrating the low Wisdom some wizards are known for in that they're forgetting/ignoring their wizard's lack of martial capabilities, which will prevent them from being particularly effective with the weapon even if the weapon is particularly effective in certain situations. I wouldn't really call this cheesy at all, even by low-op standards. Now, if the wizard wanted to carry around a Kaorti Resin Falchion. That's just stupid minmaxing, even if it's for something stupid. Scythes are iconic weapons, even if certainly weird.

To clarify: my opinion (and apparently the opinion of many other people here) is that there isn't really any good reason in-game or in-character to forbid the player from having a scythe other than "I don't want them to have one". Your declaration that you refuse to listen to any argument to the contrary means that you have wasted both your own time and everybody else posting in this thread's time by making this thread; if you weren't going to listen to opposing opinions, why make a thread asking people's opinion on the subject at all? Were you expecting an echo chamber of people congratulating you on reining in that FILTHY OPTIMIZER for their blatant munchkinry?

[Sandsarecool]

It is definitely metagaming for a wizard to carry one (barring the rare death-obsessed necromancer). That is because it is (for most wizards) impossible to explain in character why they're carrying it, and that is because the "killing sleeping people" rule is based on mechanics rather than reality. In real life, it's easier to kill a sleeping person with a knife than with a big honking scythe. Go ahead, google up statistics on knife murders and on scythe murders. Which do you think happens more often?

...You're mixing up Real world and D&D logic again. Don't. It doesn't work.

[Red Fel]

We're a RP heavy, low OP table.

Objection: A character, for in-character reasons, wants to take a sub-optimal course of action, and you deny him for mechanical reasons. So, basically, the exact opposite of what you said.


A skinny, feeble, bookish wizard may well decide the thing he needs the most on his travels is a large and heavy harvest tool.

First, large and heavy martial weapon, not harvest tool. The scythe weapon is an object specifically designed to be a weapon, as opposed to a masterwork tool that gives +2 to Profession (Farmer). Much like the nunchuks may have been inspired by a farmer's flail, but the modern weapon does not function as its predecessor, the martial scythe is a weapon inspired by the farming tool, not a farming tool in and of itself.

Second, the fact that he's a "skinny, feeble, bookish wizard" means that he's not proficient and has a low Str and encumbrance. It does not, mechanically, mean that he's not allowed to do anything but be a two-dimensionally "skinny, feeble, bookish wizard." That's you, basically saying that, in your "RP heavy" game, a character can only bit one archetype; the skinny bookish type can never admire or emulate big scary dudes with funky weapons.


But it's cheesy, lame, idiotic in every way - and no argument you can conjure up will change that.

Then why did you ask this question:

Am I within my rights to do this?

If you don't want to hear arguments to suggest that you were wrong, why ask whether you were wrong?


Further, Farm implements were never used for weapons because they are impractical in that function.

Real world logic =/= D&D logic. D&D also puts a cap on falling damage, which means that even a fall from orbit would deal a maximum of 20d6 damage, or an average of 70. Don't bring your real world stuff into my game about elves and dragons, is the point.


That some game designer included them for style reasons, and gave them anything but abysmally poor stats isn't my problem, and not anything I ever have to contend with.

It is your problem, and it is something you have to contend with, because a player asked for it. That makes it your problem, and you chose to face it by saying no.

Look, if you wanted to ban scythes, that's fine. DM prerogative.

But banning anything for one character is a different story. Sure, we occasionally ban things for a player. ("Tim, until you learn not to cause party kills, you don't get to play Frenzied Berserkers anymore.") But this isn't even that. It's a case of, "I don't think it fits your character, so you can't have it." Which directly contradicts what you said earlier, when you said:

We're a RP heavy, low OP table.

If you're an RP heavy table, why are you putting bounds around what the players can RP?

[Barstro]

But it's cheesy, lame, idiotic in every way - and no argument you can conjure up will change that.

I question why you asked us if you are justified in an action if you refuse to accept the vastly proportional response that you are either not justified, or justified but only in the strictest of sense. I caution you against requesting answers you may not like.



Further, Farm implements were never used for weapons because they are impractical in that function.

They game, RAW, specifically says they are weapons. End.

EDIT: swordsaged on both.

[AvatarVecna]

It is definitely metagaming for a wizard to carry one (barring the rare death-obsessed necromancer). That is because it is (for most wizards) impossible to explain in character why they're carrying it, and that is because the "killing sleeping people" rule is based on mechanics rather than reality. In real life, it's easier to kill a sleeping person with a knife than with a big honking scythe. Go ahead, google up statistics on knife murders and on scythe murders. Which do you think happens more often?

I'm going to go ahead and guess knife murders are more common. Of course, this might have something to do with how rare scythes are in the modern world, and how ubiquitous knives are (not a weapon nut, but I've got just about 20 knives in my kitchen I could use to seriously **** someone up if I was in the mood for murder). Whether you like it or not, non-farming scythes exist in D&D land. If you think that's a stupid idea, then ban the weapon outright.

[Echch]

Real world logic =/= D&D logic. D&D also puts a cap on falling damage, which means that even a fall from orbit would deal a maximum of 20d6 damage, or an average of 70. Don't bring your real world stuff into my game about elves and dragons, is the point.

Out of sheer confusion: Didn't the cap on falling damage have something to do with air friction creating a scenario where you can't fall faster than a specifc speed, no matter how long you fall in an air-containing environment?

[Eldariel]

In D&D toolset it's just an executioner's weapon. Banning one...well, can mounted character use a Lance? Can a tripper use a Guisarme? There's always a best weapon for the job. Scythe happens to be the best at executing sleeping targets and Wizards happen to be good at making things fall asleep among other things so having a weapon for finishing helpless targets off makes perfect sense. If he can't carry a Scythe, perhaps he carries a Greataxe instead (3d12 vs. 8d4? Basically the same average damage though the Scythe is much more reliable).

Like, what even is wizardly? His character isn't a Wizard. His character is a character with a bunch of character traits who has the powers of a Wizard. It's up to him what kind of a character it is; Wizard is just the job description. Not all Wizards are the same or even similar. And by D&D ruleset, a Wizard rarely has the use for a Dagger unless he's unusually strong. Daggers are practically useless in combat for characters that lack significant bonuses to damage; their selling point is that they're easy to hide and versatile (throwable light weapons) but a character has to know how to kill people with them (Rogue, some martial builds) for them to have any value. If the Wizard expects to need to kill monsters, he'll have to carry bigger weapons around for the sake of finishing off opponents he has temporarily made helpless.

[Tvtyrant]

It is definitely metagaming for a wizard to carry one (barring the rare death-obsessed necromancer). That is because it is (for most wizards) impossible to explain in character why they're carrying it, and that is because the "killing sleeping people" rule is based on mechanics rather than reality. In real life, it's easier to kill a sleeping person with a knife than with a big honking scythe. Go ahead, google up statistics on knife murders and on scythe murders. Which do you think happens more often?

You know that in lots of fantasy stories scythes are in fact used by casters? WoW, Tales from the Nightside, John Constantine, etc. There are lots of fluff reasons to carry a scythe, and no good ones to ban them.

BTW banning something because it doesn't correlate to real life is the height of metagaming. The world of a RPG works within its own rules, it isn't a simulator for Cubicles and Common Laborers.

[AvatarVecna]

Out of sheer confusion: Didn't the cap on falling damage have something to do with air friction creating a scenario where you can't fall faster than a specifc speed, no matter how long you fall in an air-containing environment?

Supposedly. The excuse kinda falls apart when you think about just how fluid terminal velocity is, depending on your density, how aerodynamic you are. In D&D, a housecat has the same terminal velocity as the Tarrasque, because the falling rules are only realistic for Medium humanoids operating in a world with gravity similar to Earth's (and even then, it's only decently realistic).

[Erit]

Out of sheer confusion: Didn't the cap on falling damage have something to do with air friction creating a scenario where you can't fall faster than a specifc speed, no matter how long you fall in an air-containing environment?

It's meant to simulate terminal velocity, yeah. Falling three kilometers and falling six kilometers, strictly in terms of acceleration, are equally lethal. Of course, if one tries to implement physics (usually not a great idea since physics are complicated and remarkably inconsistent from a layman's perspective) then things like air pressure and heat become dangers in and of themselves, but those are not simulated in the ruleset because the assumption was that if a PC is getting dropped from low-earth orbit, the DM is ruling that they are D-E-D-D no matter what the book may or may not say.

Edit: I have been Warblade'd.

[Tvtyrant]

Supposedly. The excuse kinda falls apart when you think about just how fluid terminal velocity is, depending on your density, how aerodynamic you are. In D&D, a housecat has the same terminal velocity as the Tarrasque, because the falling rules are only realistic for Medium humanoids operating in a world with gravity similar to Earth's (and even then, it's only decently realistic).

To be fair I think the fall rules work perfectly for D&D. In many mythologies (Norse and Greek to name a couple) demi-gods, angels and heroes fall from heaven onto Earth without dying. The D&D rules are extremely lethal at low levels (fall damage is OP!) and relatively safe for high levels.

[AvatarVecna]

To be fair I think the fall rules work perfectly for D&D. In many mythologies (Norse and Greek to name a couple) demi-gods, angels and heroes fall from heaven onto Earth without dying. The D&D rules are extremely lethal at low levels (fall damage is OP!) and relatively safe for high levels.

Oh yeah, it's great for simulating larger-than-life heroes and villains, I'm just saying that the idea that falling damage makes sense because of physics isn't partially true in a few particular ways, and is laughably false in many other ways.

[Erit]

To be fair I think the fall rules work perfectly for D&D. In many mythologies (Norse and Greek to name a couple) demi-gods, angels and heroes fall from heaven onto Earth without dying. The D&D rules are extremely lethal at low levels (fall damage is OP!) and relatively safe for high levels.

Demigods, angels and heroes in the old mythological sense usually have 20+ hit dice and decent Constitution scores, so the fall damage has very little chance of killing them.

[Venger]

Out of sheer confusion: Didn't the cap on falling damage have something to do with air friction creating a scenario where you can't fall faster than a specifc speed, no matter how long you fall in an air-containing environment?

No. The cap for falling damage was so the game wouldn't require a functionally infinite amount of d6s for when you managed to boot Saruman off his roof and you wouldn't need to spend half your session rolling.

[Tvtyrant]

Oh yeah, it's great for simulating larger-than-life heroes and villains, I'm just saying that the idea that falling damage makes sense because of physics isn't partially true in a few particular ways, and is laughably false in many other ways.

Agreed. D&D barely flirts with physics on its way over to her looser cousin tropes.

[Red Fel]

Out of sheer confusion: Didn't the cap on falling damage have something to do with air friction creating a scenario where you can't fall faster than a specifc speed, no matter how long you fall in an air-containing environment?


Supposedly. The excuse kinda falls apart when you think about just how fluid terminal velocity is, depending on your density, how aerodynamic you are. In D&D, a housecat has the same terminal velocity as the Tarrasque, because the falling rules are only realistic for Medium humanoids operating in a world with gravity similar to Earth's (and even then, it's only decently realistic).

Not just that. Irrespective of the reasoning for the rule, the cap on damage means that a character can fall from an impossibly high place, without aid of magic or buffs, and still somehow not become a pancake. Consider the fact that a Barbarian has a d12 hit die (average 6.5); assuming average HP at every level, by level 12 he has 78 HP, which is enough to completely soak the average maximum fall damage, without taking into account any form of flight, damage reduction, or other magic or buffs.

Irrespective of the source of the cap, its effect is that a character could jump off of the equivalent of a skyscraper, brush himself off, and walk away, rather than having his entire skeleton reduced to a fine bone meal.

And here's a guy complaining that scythes, as written, are unrealistic.

[Tvtyrant]

Demigods, angels and heroes in the old mythological sense usually have 20+ hit dice and decent Constitution scores, so the fall damage has very little chance of killing them.

By D&D standards they really aren't though. Hercules is level 7 or 8, Achilles is level 4-6, Thor can be statted at level 12 or so, etc.

Most mythological monsters aren't really that tough.

[TheIronGolem]

It is definitely metagaming for a wizard to carry one (barring the rare death-obsessed necromancer). That is because it is (for most wizards) impossible to explain in character why they're carrying it, and that is because the "killing sleeping people" rule is based on mechanics rather than reality. In real life, it's easier to kill a sleeping person with a knife than with a big honking scythe. Go ahead, google up statistics on knife murders and on scythe murders. Which do you think happens more often?

Scythes don't have the stats they do because somebody at the design phase thought "Hey, let's make scythes the best weapon for killing helpless people". It has a high crit multiplier because it's a big heavy blade being swung by a big heavy stick, with a sharp point that concentrates a bunch of energy into one very small striking surface. Coup-de-graces didn't factor into that decision at all. That it happens to make the weapon better for coup-de-grace is a side effect of this, one which your player happened to notice and find appealing.

And might I remind you that a coup-de-grace almost always kills regardless of what weapon is being used to do it? When you have to eat a crit and then save vs. instant death based on the damage done by that crit, the odds are usually stacked against you - especially since this usually happens in a context where you've already been knocked to zero HP or less and will likely die from the damage even without the save. The number of times this player would successfully kill with a scythe a helpless enemy that would have survived had the player used a dagger will almost certainly be zero.

And as for a scythe being "impossible" to explain for a non-necromancer, that's only true if you've already decided that any other reason "must" be invalid before you hear it. And if you do that, you're tacitly admitting that you're not confident enough in your position to subject it to critical thinking.

[Geddy2112]

Second everyone who said it would be wrong to ban it for various reasons.

A couple campaigns ago, the party wizard did indeed carry a scythe. It was a magic scythe(purify food and water at will, no other effect) in a pile of dungeon loot and nobody else wanted it. The party wizard had never held a polearm before, but he liked the magical ability, and figured it would make a good walking stick and brush clearing tool(they were effectively hiking in the highlands of Sub-Saharan Africa) and it is a weapon if nothing else.

Just because they are casters does not mean they can't have martial weapons, for whatever reason. Should we ban martials from having and using magical objects too?

[Alphabetmaster]

And here's a guy complaining that scythes, as written, are unrealistic.
I'm female.


And might I remind you that a coup-de-grace almost always kills regardless of what weapon is being used to do it? When you have to eat a crit and then save vs. instant death based on the damage done by that crit, the odds are usually stacked against you - especially since this usually happens in a context where you've already been knocked to zero HP or less and will likely die from the damage even without the save. The number of times this player would successfully kill with a scythe a helpless enemy that would have survived had the player used a dagger will almost certainly be zero.
That's the point - there's no need for him to carry around such a stupid thing when almost anything else will do. Why won't anybody get it?

[Tvtyrant]

That's the point - there's no need for him to carry around such a stupid thing when almost anything else will do. Why won't anybody get it?

We do get it. You have a particular mental image of how things should look, and you are imposing that on a player against their wishes. Your argument is "if it makes no difference why can't I say no" when the opposite question is the valid one here. Given no legitimate reason to say no, why not say yes?

[Barstro]

Should we ban martials from having and using magical objects too?

YES!!! They already get too much weapon proficiency and an overly high BAB.

[Inevitability]

Just... talk to your player. Explain your reasoning, rather than bluntly denying him this weapon. Let the player come up with an in-character justification.

How does this solution not satisfy you?

[Barstro]

Given no legitimate reason to say no, why not say yes?

Great pickup line.

[Eldariel]

That's the point - there's no need for him to carry around such a stupid thing when almost anything else will do. Why won't anybody get it?

That's not true at all. Imagine a Wizard with 10 Strength. Dagger does 2d4 damage and forces a Fort-save vs. DC 10 + damage. 2d4 averages to 5, so DC 15. A CR0 Commoner doesn't have to be very lucky to survive that. Meanwhile a Scythe or a Greataxe averages a DC30 Fort-save and 20 damage, capable of reliably killing an Ogre (but since Scythe has lesser variance, it does so more reliably) or even a Hill Giant that you've put asleep. Dagger is nigh' useless there.

[AvatarVecna]

That's the point - there's no need for him to carry around such a stupid thing when almost anything else will do. Why won't anybody get it?

Because you said your table focuses more on characterization than mechanics, and you're talking about banning a character from doing an in-character thing because it's either cheesy (what you said it was earlier) or pointless (what you just said it was). Either way, it's you saying a character can't do something that makes sense for them in-character because you have a mechanical issue with them using it.

Scythes are cool. That's all the reason really needed to purchase one, even if you never use it--and this guy found a way to potentially use it! Cool for him.

[Erit]

Just because they are casters does not mean they can't have martial weapons, for whatever reason. Should we ban martials from having and using magical objects too?

Please don't, there's a reason we don't take Vow of Poverty.

[AvatarVecna]

YES!!! They already get too much weapon proficiency and an overly high BAB.

Not to mention Barbarians get a d12 HD and big Str/Con bonuses, Fighters get tons of bonus feats, Paladins get at-will Detect Evil, Monks get like 6 attacks a round, and don't even get me started on Rangers! They get full BAB, free TWF tree, two good saves, spellcasting, and an animal companion! Really, taking away their magic items is the least we can do to keep those rampaging cheesemonkeys in line.

[TheIronGolem]

That's the point - there's no need for him to carry around such a stupid thing when almost anything else will do. Why won't anybody get it?

We do get it, we just don't agree that it's a good reason for a ban. Whether there's an objective "need" for the character to have a scythe is immaterial. Just like real people, well-played characters often do things that are less than 100% practical for reasons involving personal preference. My point in the paragraph you quoted is that the way CDG's work undermine your accusations of "cheese". There is no cheese here.

And it really is okay for PC's to use weapons that don't match the stereotypical image of their race/class/nationality/whatever. Players shouldn't feel obligated to toe the line of your personal aesthetic taste. A wizard with a scythe is hardly a setting-breaker.

[Geddy2112]

I'm female.

That's the point - there's no need for him to carry around such a stupid thing when almost anything else will do. Why won't anybody get it?
A stupid thing you say? What if he had a quarterstaff or walking stick? Would that be stupid? I doubt that would break the feeble arcane caster carrying a staff image. What if they put a sharpened point on the end of that stick to make it a spear? Still fine? What if they put a blade edge on the top? Why is this too far? it is still just a swing and hack weapon that(although not as well as a martial fighter) one could use and figure out the use of with ease. It is not as complicated as using a sword in combat, or as dangerous.

What if the wizard is elven? Should they scrap their bow proficiency to hit the books?

I argue it better than a wizard or any feeble weaker casting type use a polearm over a dagger or sword or closer range weapon. Most polearms in history were designed with this very purpose in mind-spears and polearms could use range to keep opponents at distance, where advantages from height, weight, strength, and close range training are negated. Women of the samurai class in Japan trained with naginatas for this very purpose, to even the odds against samurai with extensive sword training. Throughout history all over the world, the line infantry were always given sharpened sticks, or sticks with sharp things on the end because of how point and click it is. Certainly trained knights and their cultural equals were better with polearms, but most people can figure out the basics of a polearm, while a sword or other weapon starts to really require training.

YES!!! They already get too much weapon proficiency and an overly high BAB.
And good fortitude saves to boot, WHERE WILL THE MADNESS END?!



Scythes are cool. That's all the reason really needed to purchase one, even if you never use it--and this guy found a way to potentially use it! Cool for him.
The rule of cool and rule of fun are generally more important than the rule that the DM is always right.

I do worry that you think a full arcane caster is "cheesing" because they want to carry a polearm they lack proficiency with...what happens if they start pulling tier 1 caster tricks and really break the game?

[Einselar]

That's the point - there's no need for him to carry around such a stupid thing when almost anything else will do. Why won't anybody get it?

Everyone gets your reasoning. The largest problem with the current scenario is that your player desires to do something, and you, for reasons either justified or not, have decided that this wizard in particular may not go to a weapons shop and buy a scythe. That is the inherent problem with the entire situation. There is currently a ban on this one man from ever buying a scythe. From an RP perspective, when he attempts to walk into a shop and buy a scythe, for one reason or another, he is incapable of touching it. If someone else goes and attempts to purchase it for him, they walk out with it just fine, but when he attempts to lay hands on it, it either flings itself away from him or sunders itself into dust.

The problem is that in attempting to prevent Meta-gaming, you have created an even more ludicrous situation which would likely never occur. And furthermore, you have banned a player from making a choice any other player in the party could make. This is your prerogative as everyone else has said, but at the end of the day, if you do this on a regular basis, your players can also go find another group. I have left groups for much less because I can always find another game and another DM.

The DM is not God, for a God could prevent players from leaving the game. Rather, the DM is the sentience behind that which the character cannot control (NPCs) and the guiding hand behind natural wonders, boons, and disasters. As soon as you control anything beyond that, you are stepping a very fine line, and if you fall, it will create a hostility at the table that will not be easily dissipated.

Edit: Grammar

[CharonsHelper]

What!? Someone came on here to get their at-table argument validated and they AREN'T open to the idea that they might have been in the wrong!? I'm shocked! Shocked I say!

[Dr.Samurai]

I... get it I think.

It seems... meta-gamey indeed.

A scythe, in fact, seems less likely to me, to deal a fatal killing blow to a helpless opponent, than a dagger or hammer, because I can't wield a scythe and can't trust myself to actually do the job properly. When thinking about stuff I want to bring around with me to adventure with, I think it is in fact quite meta-gamey to think up "x4 crit modifier, scythe!". It reeks a bit in my opinion.

A knife through the throat, or caving a skull in with a club. These things make sense to me. Someone wants to make sure his unmoving opponents are dead and decides to strap a dagger or sap to his belt? I get it. But a scythe? Lol, you want to lug around a polearm just to swing it at someone that isn't moving? Doesn't make any sense.

In fact, I daresay that the idea of carrying one around with you solely to attack unconscious or helpless opponents actually disrupts the verisimilitude of the game for me.

Now, that's my opinion. But I think, if a player told me "my character wants to carry a scythe around because he thinks it is easier to dispatch helpless foes with it", well... I actually think I'd give him an incredulous look and... tell him no?

I think I'd do that. Which is strange, because it seems nonsensical. I mean... they could buy one anywhere. How could I ban a scythe lol? But... it just doesn't make any sense to me. The justification isn't there. It seems 100% meta-gamey. In the end, I don't think I could stop them from purchasing one in-store, so the character will for sure have one. But I honestly think it would bug me internally lol.

Anyways... my two cents.

[Klara Meison]

We're a RP heavy, low OP table. A skinny, feeble, bookish wizard may well decide the thing he needs the most on his travels is a large and heavy harvest tool. But it's cheesy, lame, idiotic in every way - and no argument you can conjure up will change that.

Further, Farm implements were never used for weapons because they are impractical in that function. That some game designer included them for style reasons, and gave them anything but abysmally poor stats isn't my problem, and not anything I ever have to contend with.

>But it's cheesy, lame

Don't want to argue the other points because others have already done so, but lame? Scythe is the weapon of Grim Reaper. You go right ahead, tell this guy (https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/e35/c0.25.480.480/13715113_1744592282485373_1540626567_n.jpg) he is being lame. Or this guy, affectionally called "The Prince Of Decay" by his friends (http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammer40k/images/9/9f/Mortarion%2C_Prince_of_Decay.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110312202131). And call me when you are going to do that, I wanna take pictures. That last one? He is pretty much a wizard too, in his own weird way.

[Eldariel]

I... get it I think.

It seems... meta-gamey indeed.

A scythe, in fact, seems less likely to me, to deal a fatal killing blow to a helpless opponent, than a dagger or hammer, because I can't wield a scythe and can't trust myself to actually do the job properly. When thinking about stuff I want to bring around with me to adventure with, I think it is in fact quite meta-gamey to think up "x4 crit modifier, scythe!". It reeks a bit in my opinion.

A knife through the throat, or caving a skull in with a club. These things make sense to me. Someone wants to make sure his unmoving opponents are dead and decides to strap a dagger or sap to his belt? I get it. But a scythe? Lol, you want to lug around a polearm just to swing it at someone that isn't moving? Doesn't make any sense.

Stop right there. That's you thinking in our world where every person can be reliably killed with a knife and a world that features no hostile intelligent things too big to really be harmed by such a tool (sure, you can't kill an elephant with a dagger but thankfully you don't need to kill elephants; they aren't the evil masterminds or whatever you're fighting against - no such luck with dragons or giants). Imagine you wanted to go around killing a bunch of giants in their sleep. A Dagger might not even be long enough to physically be capable of reaching their vitals no matter how well it penetrates! And that's assuming you can punch through the flesh and the sinew. Imagine that 1 in 10 humans (all the warrior types you might actually have trouble fighting against) regularly shrugged off Daggers to the neck. That doesn't happen in real life but it happens in D&D.

Thus your assumptions based on real life experience are not comparable to the experiences of a character in a D&D world. In a world where a dagger simply doesn't suffice for killing those enemies who you actually must put to sleep and kill, would you still rely on it? Would you stake your life on your untrained dagger use? I certainly wouldn't and I think most people who would would soon learn the folly of their ways.


What's happening here is you're making assumptions based on our world, not a world with nigh' immortal heroes, fearsome giants and monstrous dragons. Against a normal human, daggers are fine. They're small and convenient to have around. Against something who you simply cannot meaningfully harm with a Dagger though? You log around something you with which can. Yes, it's inconvenient but it's better than engaging an enemy with no way to harm them. Once you have them at your mercy, you need to be able to finish the job before they recover.

Satchel Charges during World War 2 are a good comparison. Satchel Charges are big and clumsy and inconvenient to carry around, but if they're the only weapon with which you can destroy a KV tank, you're going to log them around. There's any number of ways to disable and stop a KV but if you don't destroy it, it's eventually gonna be fixed and be right back to rolling through your lines. If you were instead fighting a bunch of horseback knights, you'd have no need for Satchel Charges since once you've disabled them a mace is good enough to finish the job. But try and finishing a KV tank off with a mace and you'll see the inherent contradiction. Weapons are always designed for the enemies they're meant against. Thus, a Wizard fighting level 1 Commoners will probably be fine with a Dagger. A Wizard fighting high level Barbarians/Fighters, Dragons, Giants, etc. is going to need a bigger weapon. Thus, if your game only features level 1 Commoners, your argument makes sense. But if your game features Giants, Dragons, etc. then you are the one metagaming: you are applying real world logic to the game world.

[Zaydos]

I have in fact used a farming scythe (within the last 3 days), it'd be hard to coup de grace with due to being awkward to hit a target laying on the ground, though almost certainly better at it than a dagger due to being bigger, and pretty deadly.

Now a military scythe (https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0554/1957/products/DSCF3289a.png?v=1423668856), that'd be just plain better at it than a dagger, and you don't need to now how to use it well to hit the throat on a creature that's not moving. There's nothing metagaming about realizing that if you're only attacking unmoving creatures a wood axe is a better weapon than a dagger (now of course the dagger is better for murder because you're trying not to be obvious that you're bringing a wood axe into someone's bed room), a military pick is better than a wood axe (possibly a farming mattock too), and that a military scythe is in D&D-verse better than a wood axe or a dagger.

Now is it worth carrying? I'd just coup de grace with the light/heavy crossbow I carried anyway (9 damage on average compared to 16 assuming a -1 Str mod) because 10 lbs for coup de grace is ... wait 10 lbs? Why is the scythe 10 lbs, is that how much a military scythe weighs? I'm a wizard with Int 12+ I understand leverage, and if I drop something it falls, that's a greatsword blade weight at the end of a stick, I drop it on someone blade first and it kills someone if they don't move. I'd not carrying a 10 lb scythe because oh look it'll push me very close to the encumbrance line if I have 10 Str if not over.

So not really metagaming in the least.


It's meant to simulate terminal velocity, yeah. Falling three kilometers and falling six kilometers, strictly in terms of acceleration, are equally lethal. Of course, if one tries to implement physics (usually not a great idea since physics are complicated and remarkably inconsistent from a layman's perspective) then things like air pressure and heat become dangers in and of themselves, but those are not simulated in the ruleset because the assumption was that if a PC is getting dropped from low-earth orbit, the DM is ruling that they are D-E-D-D no matter what the book may or may not say.

Edit: I have been Warblade'd.

2e Spelljammer had rules for falling from orbit and taking damage from the heat (possibly air friction too as well).


No. The cap for falling damage was so the game wouldn't require a functionally infinite amount of d6s for when you managed to boot Saruman off his roof and you wouldn't need to spend half your session rolling.

And this is why fall speed caps out at terminal velocity at 200 ft of falling.

[KillianHawkeye]

A scythe, in fact, seems less likely to me, to deal a fatal killing blow to a helpless opponent, than a dagger or hammer, because I can't wield a scythe and can't trust myself to actually do the job properly. When thinking about stuff I want to bring around with me to adventure with, I think it is in fact quite meta-gamey to think up "x4 crit modifier, scythe!". It reeks a bit in my opinion.

So because you can't see yourself doing so in real life, it's "unrealistic" for a character in a fantasy game? What nonsense. Do you not understand how amazingly faulty your logic is?


A knife through the throat, or caving a skull in with a club. These things make sense to me. Someone wants to make sure his unmoving opponents are dead and decides to strap a dagger or sap to his belt? I get it. But a scythe? Lol, you want to lug around a polearm just to swing it at someone that isn't moving? Doesn't make any sense.

A knife to the throat or a club to the head will work fine on your average 1st level Commoner, but in a world with giants, dragons, and near-mythical heroes and villains, it absolutely makes sense to want something a little bigger. To say otherwise, especially when the scythe is factually better for this use, is what breaks verisimilitude.

People should try to be a little more open-minded. To paraphrase Shakespeare, "there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

[Hecuba]

I'm female.

That's the point - there's no need for him to carry around such a stupid thing when almost anything else will do. Why won't anybody get it?


-- First thing's first: based on what you are reporting, it seems to me that the issue is that you and your player are disagreeing first and foremost because you are not talking about the same thing. From what I can tell, your primary objection is that you feel that the scythe breaks immersion (more on the validity of that later). From what you indicated above, when you brought your concern to the player, the justification that you were given was a mechanical one.

This generally indicates that they did not understand the basis of your concern. I would start by trying to explain it again.



-- Second, banning something should not generally be your first recourse. I'm firmly of the opinion that the DM should work cooperatively with the players to create a table and setting where everyone can pursue the many different goals inherent in the role-playing game.

There may be some situations where conflicting goals may force resorting to a ban, but I generally find them to be rare when you take the time to look for other options.

For example, if the issue is that the character they are envisioning does not fit well into this setting, have you considered modifying the setting a bit and the character a bit to round off the proverbial edges? Or offered to sort out a more accommodating setting for the next game?



-- See other people's replies regarding the weapon vs. farm implement thing. They are not the same thing. If your objection is rooted in the idea that this is a farm implement, you are objectively mistaken. Setting aside the any fantasy embellishments the player might add, the item you are discussing should be this:
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0554/1957/products/DSCF8523.jpeg?v=1423668856
Not this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scythe_against_hedge.jpg



-- Next, there is also the matter of scythes not being particularly bulky compared to some some simple weapons. They're generally not much longer than a quarterstaff or short spear, and not all that much heavier. If his reported feebleness wouldn't cause you to object to him having a quarterstaff, then having a scythe shouldn't be significantly different on that front.



-- Finally, you've not said what about his characterization makes you find his backstory ridiculous. What about it and why? You suggested swords, so clearly it's not some matter of any martial weapon being an issue.
My best guess is you you are envisioning a strongly defined place in your world for Wizards - i.e. heavily class-based, at least for Wizards - and his concept does not match this. If that is the case, have you explained that and the conceit you are aiming for? If the player's expectations for the setting and yours don't match up well, an OoC discussion can usually resolve the issue quickly enough.

[umbergod]

OP, as has been iterated, no you arent justified. You were seeking vindication on the board and didnt get it bc its a ridiculous ban, akin to telling a barbarian he/she cant use magic items bc they are superstitious......

[Mehangel]

As others have said before, don't ban him from using a scythe. But if you want to discourage him, perhaps tell the player the following:

"Scythes are the weapon of warriors and necromancers or a tool for the commonfolk. Because you are dressed as a wizard and not a warrior or a farmer, people who see you carrying a scythe will come to think that you are a necromancer, and may persecute you for it. If you are willing to take that risk and be shunned or feared by the commonfolk, that is fine. Just consider yourself warned that if ever there is a zombie attack, you will be among the first they accuse."

[Tvtyrant]

Or if the rules are a huge deal just make scythes mechanically identical to short swords, then it would be an entirely fluff decision to use one.

[TheIronGolem]

As others have said before, don't ban him from using a scythe. But if you want to discourage him, perhaps tell the player the following:

"Scythes are the weapon of warriors and necromancers or a tool for the commonfolk. Because you are dressed as a wizard and not a warrior or a farmer, people who see you carrying a scythe will come to think that you are a necromancer, and may persecute you for it. If you are willing to take that risk and be shunned or feared by the commonfolk, that is fine. Just consider yourself warned that if ever there is a zombie attack, you will be among the first they accuse."

Nothing wrong with this advice. It's a fair point, and if "scythe + robe = zombie lord" is a common perception in your setting then the player should certainly be made aware of it. But I would add a caveat that giving the player this warning is not, repeat not a license to have zombies to eat a town just so you can have the player's character lynched by an angry mob and blame the player for it.

I'm not saying you would do this, OP. But I've seen my share of passive-aggressive DM's who do stuff like this to "punish" a player for talking them into allowing something they didn't like. Don't be one of them.

[Âmesang]

I once had a referee who thought very similarly towards spiked chains, unable to reason why anyone would wield one instead of a sword, axe, mace, &c. In time I began to imagine a fighter who was a dock worker in his youth and witnessed another worker get his leg caught up in a chain and hoisted off of his feet; he was fine, nothing bruised but his ego, everyone had a good laugh… but it planted a seed into the mind of the fighter-to-be that getting hit with a chain can not only hurt, but being able to trip a foe can prove a great advantage. Add some spiky bits and now you're tearing flesh on top of that.

With regards to scythes I once utilized one not just for a wizard, but used it in place of a quarterstaff for a custom-made staff, "winter's chill." Now, granted, he was meant to be very Grim Reaper-esque—a worm that walks with a raven familiar, and the scythe-staff was imbued with necromatic and cold-based spells (including fire resistance due to the cool aura surrounding it). However, the whole "necromancer trying to look Grim Reaper-esque" only works if the setting does have a Grim Reaper-esque character. WORLD OF GREYHAWK® has Nerull, but what of the other settings? Would they even be able to recognize what we'd consider an iconic image?

…on the other hand I'm currently focusing on a 5th Edition drow "blackguard" (oathbreaker/assassin) wielding an katana "elven curved blade" (just because the figurine is depicted with a two-handed curved blade, and the Playtest stats made it a two-handed finesse weapons, allowing for sneak attacks).


Sure, you can't kill an elephant with a dagger but thankfully you don't need to kill elephants; they aren't the evil masterminds or whatever you're fighting against…
…or are they!? :smalleek:

[ngilop]

YES!!! They already get too much weapon proficiency and an overly high BAB.

....sadly this is what WoTC and paizo were thinking when they made 3rd ed.

[Dr.Samurai]

So because you can't see yourself doing so in real life, it's "unrealistic" for a character in a fantasy game? What nonsense. Do you not understand how amazingly faulty your logic is?
My my, what a twitchy group we have here on the Playground. When you're done getting triggered from my opinion, see if you can follow my faulty logic.

I share something in common with the wizard you see. I am not proficient in scythes. So I wouldn't know how to use one. So it's just weird to me that someone would choose to use one because it deals the most damage to helpless enemies when presumably they've never wielded one before or at the very least wield one quite poorly. Even if someone was lying motionless on the floor in front of me, I'd be more confident that I could dispatch them with a knife or club than with a scythe. As a noncombatant, I don't think I'd be far off from a traditional wizard.

Since we all form opinions based on our own perspectives, and this is my perspective, I'm not sure where you're seeing an argument and "amazingly faulty logic" beyond my own mere opinion and assertion that I can in fact see where the OP is coming from.

A knife to the throat or a club to the head will work fine on your average 1st level Commoner, but in a world with giants, dragons, and near-mythical heroes and villains, it absolutely makes sense to want something a little bigger. To say otherwise, especially when the scythe is factually better for this use, is what breaks verisimilitude.
In real life, and in most myths, if you stab a creature through the throat or head with a knife, or brain it with a club, it dies. Especially if it is at "0hp" and lying unconscious on the floor.

We're not talking about a wizard running into melee with a scythe to hurt dragons and giants in melee combat. We're talking about finishing a dying enemy off. Or are you suggesting that if one of your players CDGed a giant with a dagger you'd have it have no effect?

People should try to be a little more open-minded.
I agree. The group think/echo chamber in this thread is a little stuffy. But I'm doing my best to get through.

All joking aside, I agree that banning the scythe is pointless. The character can easily get his hands on it. I don't agree, however, that this isn't obviously meta-gaming and the OP is as offensive as the special snowflakes in this thread are making her out to be for pointing that out. This is a matter of taste. For some people, knowing that a scythe is better at killing a downed enemy is enough in-story reason to justify the wizard carrying a scythe. For others, like me, I don't think it is.


Stop right there.
Uh... no?

That's you thinking in our world where every person can be reliably killed with a knife and a world that features no hostile intelligent things too big to really be harmed by such a tool
The only world I can think in *is* our world, unless you've discovered another plane of existence or something.

Unless a monster in D&D actually has physical immunity or damage resistance, it can be harmed by a knife.

Imagine you wanted to go around killing a bunch of giants in their sleep.
No, because I don't think that's what we're talking about here. Relying on a wizard to dispatch a group of sleeping giants with a scythe sounds pretty... stupid.

A Dagger might not even be long enough to physically be capable of reaching their vitals no matter how well it penetrates! And that's assuming you can punch through the flesh and the sinew.
If that is true then do you give giants in your game DR vs daggers?

Imagine that 1 in 10 humans (all the warrior types you might actually have trouble fighting against) regularly shrugged off Daggers to the neck. That doesn't happen in real life but it happens in D&D.
Perhaps it happens in YOUR D&D, but it doesn't happen in mine. Because again, that doesn't make any sense. Humans can't just shrug off dagger strikes to the neck. If you describe it that way in your games, that's fine. But explaining hits and damage in the narrative to explain hit points is, I think, outside the scope of this conversation.

Thus your assumptions based on real life experience are not comparable to the experiences of a character in a D&D world.
You have not shown this to be the case.

In a world where a dagger simply doesn't suffice for killing those enemies who you actually must put to sleep and kill, would you still rely on it? Would you stake your life on your untrained dagger use? I certainly wouldn't and I think most people who would would soon learn the folly of their ways.
I am a wizard. I am casting spells. I rely on knowledge and arcane powers to kill people. The scythe is not to bring down my foes. It is to kill them after they've been incapacitated.


What's happening here is you're making assumptions based on our world, not a world with nigh' immortal heroes, fearsome giants and monstrous dragons. Against a normal human, daggers are fine.
I am making assumptions that are written into the game. Like daggers can hurt monsters that aren't specifically immune to them.

Satchel Charges during World War 2 are a good comparison. Satchel Charges are big and clumsy and inconvenient to carry around, but if they're the only weapon with which you can destroy a KV tank, you're going to log them around.
Are there weapons in D&D that are the only way you can kill helpless enemies? No? Then this is, in fact, not a good comparison.

There's any number of ways to disable and stop a KV but if you don't destroy it, it's eventually gonna be fixed and be right back to rolling through your lines.
If a monster is dying, it will either die, or stabilize. Neither of which will have it rolling right back through your lines. Or are you suggesting that the wizard's idea is to cast Hold Monster, and then run up and CDG a giant with the scythe?

If you were instead fighting a bunch of horseback knights, you'd have no need for Satchel Charges since once you've disabled them a mace is good enough to finish the job. But try and finishing a KV tank off with a mace and you'll see the inherent contradiction. Weapons are always designed for the enemies they're meant against.
Again, I'm not sure what we think is going on here. Is the idea that the wizard is casting an incapacitating spell and then running up and using the scythe? Because otherwise, the KV tank dies at -10hp, so a mace is in fact good enough to do the job.

Thus, a Wizard fighting level 1 Commoners will probably be fine with a Dagger. A Wizard fighting high level Barbarians/Fighters, Dragons, Giants, etc. is going to need a bigger weapon. Thus, if your game only features level 1 Commoners, your argument makes sense. But if your game features Giants, Dragons, etc. then you are the one metagaming: you are applying real world logic to the game world.
No. Running around "knowing" that the humans in your world can take multiple stabs to the throat without incident is metagaming. But that is beside the point. The only reason given, so far, for the use of a scythe is because of the x4 crit modifier. Now, you can take that to mean "the wizard knows that scythes more easily dispatch downed enemies than other weapons", but I'm more incredulous. I don't think living in a D&D world, and having a high intelligence, necessarily translates to "knows weapons systems", especially if he lacks proficiency.

[Eldariel]

With regards to scythes I once utilized one not just for a wizard, but used it in place of a quarterstaff for a custom-made staff, "winter's chill." Now, granted, he was meant to be very Grim Reaper-esque—a worm that walks with a raven familiar, and the scythe-staff was imbued with necromatic and cold-based spells (including fire resistance due to the cool aura surrounding it). However, the whole "necromancer trying to look Grim Reaper-esque" only works if the setting does have a Grim Reaper-esque character. WORLD OF GREYHAWK® has Nerull, but what of the other settings? Would they even be able to recognize what we'd consider an iconic image?

This is a fair question but I'd assume cultures that have developed agriculture, have a concept of death and use scythes are quite likely to develop something of the sort even if it isn't an actual deity in the settings. The "reaper of souls" as the harbinger of afterlife is a natural metaphor stemming from a biped reaping crops, and a powerful one. Just like bipeds reap and collect crops, so too does death reap and collect us once our time is up after all; there are few more appropriate images for something that takes every life eventually after all.

That said, Forgotten Realms has Jergal and Eberron has the Keeper so at least something of the sort exists in those 3. Of the others, I don't remember off-hand.

[Dr.Samurai]

@OP: Would a story explanation help make this more palatable to you? Or are you simply against the general idea of it? Because if the former, I'd suggest talking to the player and seeing if he can come up with an explanation in-game to wield the scythe. OR You could drop it as loot somewhere and he can pick it up there and decide to bring it along and use it sparingly (when needed).

If the latter, well, that seems a little unfair to your player.

[The Viscount]

We're a few posts away from Rudisplorker bingo.


That's the point - there's no need for him to carry around such a stupid thing when almost anything else will do. Why won't anybody get it?

Let me remind you that you haven't explained why this is out of character for the wizard, simply stated that it is.

Where does this attitude end? If your player is not allowed to select the scythe because it's "metagamey," is any character selecting a guisarme to do trip attacks banned for being "metgamey" as well? Can your wizard select shocking grasp over burning hands because it deals more damage, or is that "metagamey"?

[Deadline]

Again, I'm not sure what we think is going on here. Is the idea that the wizard is casting an incapacitating spell and then running up and using the scythe? Because otherwise, the KV tank dies at -10hp, so a mace is in fact good enough to do the job.

Yes, a wizard is carrying the scythe around to coup de grace to kill an incapacitated foe in combat. No, a dagger will not do this for most opponents in D&D. It won't even do it for a 1st level commoner at -1HP who makes his save vs. the CDG. Of course, in that one specific case, you can just stab him again next round. However, against a sleeping opponent, you'll want to take them out with that first strike. A dagger isn't going to reliably do it (unless you houserule otherwise) against most CR 1 enemies let alone anything higher level than that. Against, say, a paralyzed giant, that same wizard might spend the entire duration of the paralysis performing coup de grace attacks with a dagger and not kill it.

To put it in "real-world" terms, if you know that a particular tool will do a job reliably almost every time, you wouldn't be very smart to use a tool that fails to do the job well most of the time instead. For example, you could probably kill a person with a dull plastic knife with repeated stabbings (which you aren't going to get on a sleeping target), but there are better weapons you could use.

[Erys]

That's the point - there's no need for him to carry around such a stupid thing when almost anything else will do. Why won't anybody get it?

Generally speaking, I personally find scythes campy and trite. 99% of the people who want to use them only want the crit modifier and in my experience even the best story justifications come up weak and unimaginative.

BUT, you posted here posing a question and you should not get upset if you don't receive the validation you seek. If you feel you did right by your ruling, stand by it; don't second guess yourself by posting here.

[AnachroNinja]

It's not really meta gamey once your at the point where it really is more effective for that purpose within the game world, and that purpose is expressly the reason being used to justify the action by the character rather then the PC. If the character consistently finds himself wanting to be able to finish off incapacitated foes, and scythes just really are great for that, there's no reason not to have one.

Shotguns are really good for breaching doors, my black ops spy guy might lug one around for exactly that purpose even though it's not really conducive to the rest of his plans and training.

Also, am I the only one that always finds it obnoxious when you feel the need to point out your gender for no real reason? Being referred to as "a guy" in a neutral fashion, in a situation where gender has no bearing... Maybe just let it fly by.

[eggynack]

I don't really understand the issue. The character wants the capacity to execute enemies efficiently. Scythes, both within our world and in the game world, are closely associated thematically with execution. Thus, it makes sense for the character to want a scythe, whether they know the exact associated stats or not. It's not metagaming. The weapon is clearly superior at this task, even from the perspective of someone inside the game. Yes, the scythe is more unwieldy than a dagger, in that it's a martial rather than simple weapon, it's more expensive than a dagger, clearly, and it's heavier than a dagger, again clearly, but just as clear is the fact that this character can, fully within the bounds of logic, value the capacity to perform that task above all those things, because different people value different things. Do other weapons do things similar, though not as well? Sure, but that just shows the character's commitment to this goal. And if you think that execution power isn't worth all those in-game downsides, then, well, clearly that's the exact opposite of metagaming, because the character is functionally downgraded a little bit.

So, beyond not thinking this issue isn't sufficient to justify this sort of banning, I'm inclined to think that the issue simply doesn't exist. You claim metagaming. I can't see any metagaming whatsoever, given the known meaning behind a scythe. You may as well claim that someone carrying around a big ol' saw is metagaming because it's unwieldy and knives can cut things too. Different tools work well for different jobs, and this player, and thus this character, has a particular job in mind.

[icefractal]

Re: CdG - it does seem strange that a greatsword or a scythe works better than a knife to the throat for this. But consider that this is an in-battle CdG that only takes six seconds. That's not carefully lining up the knife and slitting someone's throat, that's getting one good strike to a vital area in, and when you only have one strike a bigger blade may well work better.

Personal Houserule: When you have unharrassed conditions (those which you could "take 10" in), and take three rounds, then you can make a Careful CdG. This does maximum damage, the crit multiplier is x4 regardless of weapon, and if you have a damage penalty from low Strength it doesn't apply. So even a feeble person with a dagger does 16 damage and forces a DC 26 save, which is enough to kill anyone normal 95% of the time.

Re: Stereotypical Wizard Appearance - I wouldn't call "all Wizards must fit a specific 'nerdy scholar' image" the "RP heavy" option. Hell, Gandalf uses a sword! As mentioned, the GM controls every other part of the world. A player's character is about what they think is cool, not what you think is cool. Heck, sometimes I have my Wizards pretend to be Monks (or vice-versa) in appearance, which I guess makes me a terrible player. :smalltongue:

[Necroticplague]

I'm confused. If he wants the most effective weapon for slaying helpless foes, why is he going with the Scythe? It seems like the Greathammer is superior in this respect. Average of 5 damagex4 (scythe) vs. average of 6.5 damagex4 (greathammer). Gold or Platinum would be even better, but that can equally apply to either weapon (though admittedly, that's fairly pricey). Seems like he's actually giving up the better choice to stick with the flavorful option of something more commonly available.

EDIT:

Re: CdG - it does seem strange that a greatsword or a scythe works better than a knife to the throat for this. But consider that this is an in-battle CdG that only takes six seconds. That's not carefully lining up the knife and slitting someone's throat, that's getting one good strike to a vital area in, and when you only have one strike a bigger blade may well work better.


I think a CdG works differently depending on weapons. For smaller ones, you might be trying to slit their throat quickly, or similar. For larger ones, I imagine it's like how an execution by ax normally works: you take a lot of time to swing your massive metal in a giant arc any moving person could see coming and dodge (thus, why CdG provokes AoO). For a Greatspear or similar, you might take a step back and jump so you can add you're weight to impaling something important, Greatswords or similar go for a decapitation, and Greathammers and co. turn heads and ribcages into with a massive overhead swing.

[Tvtyrant]

Generally speaking, I personally find scythes campy and trite. 99% of the people who want to use them only want the crit modifier and in my experience even the best story justifications come up weak and unimaginative.

BUT, you posted here posing a question and you should not get upset if you don't receive the validation you seek. If you feel you did right by your ruling, stand by it; don't second guess yourself by posting here.

Camp, in my game of long eared hippies and scottish miners? It is more likely then you think.

[eggynack]

I'm confused. If he wants the most effective weapon for slaying helpless foes, why is he going with the Scythe? It seems like the Greathammer is superior in this respect. Average of 5 damagex4 (scythe) vs. average of 6.5 damagex4 (greathammer). Gold or Platinum would be even better, but that can equally apply to either weapon (though admittedly, that's fairly pricey). Seems like he's actually giving up the better choice to stick with the flavorful option of something more commonly available.
Seems likely they either didn't know about it or didn't think about it. I certainly didn't think about it.

[Zaydos]

On the real world argument, a dagger isn't better for coup de grace than a military scythe or a wood axe. Could I fight with a wood axe? No. But if I bring it down on your throat (and having cut fallen trees I can say that even untrained you can hit a 3 inch wide area reliably) it will kill you more reliably and quicker than slitting your throat with a dagger. Not only did I just hack through major arteries, I broke your wind pipe. This is because it's a 5+ lb piece of metal on a 3' stick. You don't need any training to hit a throat or head of a sleepy creature with a wood axe, and it will kill them more effectively than a dagger (which isn't a cutting knife so isn't even particularly good for slicing a throat, and is in fact significantly worse at it than a longsword).

A military scythe is a 5+ lb piece of metal on a 5' stick and kept razor sharp, and also designed to cut flesh. It is much better than a wood axe or a dagger for the job. It is not, however, as easily accessible, as easily carried, or as easily hidden. All things which matter when committing murder, but do not matter nearly as much for carrying it around to kill animals or ogres you have magically enslumbered.

The 'well in real life a dagger is just as good for this' argument does not in fact hold up in real life. If I was trying to drive away a vicious animal, let's say a coyote as something relatively non-dangerous and able to in fact be hurt with a dagger (a dagger won't do much to a grizzly bear), I would not carry a dagger, I'd carry a mattock (a farming pick), a wood axe (a wood axe), a farming scythe (not made to be a weapon), a large stick (quarterstaff), or a boar spear if I could get one (8' long, with metal prongs to hold it off) assuming I didn't have access to guns or knowledge of how to use a hunting bow (I don't but). If I wanted to kill one in its sleep I'd use the wood axe, mattock, or boar spear, all better striking angles. A military scythe uses the same striking angle. I would not use a knife, which would wake it up, require me to get next to it risking waking it up prematurely, not kill it as quickly, and not kill it as reliably (I would in fact given the option use the boar spear or military scythe due to longer reach meaning I'm less likely to wake it or get bit in return, the boar spear is probably the best choice as the metal prongs mean I can pin it to the ground if it does live, the military scythe means it's more likely to die).

Which returns us to, it's not metagaming to pick the tool that fits the job in universe because it fits the job in universe. To go with the classic DMG example (2e) of metagaming 'oh there has to be a way around this trap because other wise the DM wouldn't have put it in' is metagaming, 'oh there has to be a way around this trap because the gnomes use this path and wouldn't wholly block off their own main entrance' is not metagaming.

[Eldariel]

Seems likely they either didn't know about it or didn't think about it. I certainly didn't think about it.

In any game featuring carrying capacity, it's completely unusable early on at 50lb.

[Zaydos]

In any game featuring carrying capacity, it's completely unusable early on at 50lb.

Not too mention only coming in large size, and being from MMIV or V and thus very unlikely to actually exist in universe much less have been heard of. The Mercurial Greatsword (600 GP :smalleek:) clocks in at 7x4 for a mere 17 lbs (-3 extra to hit if not proficient). Specifically made for executions (in it was stolen from the executioner blade in Gene Wolf's Book of the New Sun and not based on a real weapon).

[KillianHawkeye]

My my, what a twitchy group we have here on the Playground. When you're done getting triggered from my opinion, see if you can follow my faulty logic.

I share something in common with the wizard you see. I am not proficient in scythes. So I wouldn't know how to use one. So it's just weird to me that someone would choose to use one because it deals the most damage to helpless enemies when presumably they've never wielded one before or at the very least wield one quite poorly. Even if someone was lying motionless on the floor in front of me, I'd be more confident that I could dispatch them with a knife or club than with a scythe. As a noncombatant, I don't think I'd be far off from a traditional wizard.

Follow this logic: You don't need to be proficient to stab or slash someone in their sleep. It's even in the rules, you automatically hit and get a crit when performing a coup-de-grace.

As far as your personal, real life experience goes, let's be honest. Unless you took a lot of martial arts classes, you're probably not proficient with ANY kind of melee weapon. Wizards in D&D are. Outside the military, most real people don't know how to handle themselves in a life or death struggle. Wizards in D&D do. If you're not a soldier or a murderer, you've never intentionally killed someone. Wizards in D&D face that situation several times a day. Bottom line, they know how to handle themselves in a fight more than most real people ever will, even if fighting with weapons isn't their focus.

Comparing yourself to a D&D character is completely ludicrous.

[Anlashok]

We're a RP heavy, low OP table

You don't sound particularly RP heavy. What with the throwing a huge fit because one of your players is doing something that 'doesn't make sense' for the generic wizard stereotype you have in your head.

It sounds more like you're the sort of GM who uses "RP heavy" as a justification to shut people down whenever they do something you don't like but can't come up with a more reasonable explanation as to why you want to shut them down.

[denthor]

A wizard with a scythe?

Is color spray a favorite spell?

To quote another playgrounder "Death loves rainbows"

[Erys]

Camp, in my game of long eared hippies and scottish miners? It is more likely then you think.

Well, if the game revolves around miners, sure. That might fall in that 1% where the reason is actually legit and makes for a decent to great story.

Though a scythe is not the same thing as a pick... so in such a game I personally would expect the latter, but not the former.

But that is just me.


Follow this logic: You don't need to be proficient to stab or slash someone in their sleep. It's even in the rules, you automatically hit and get a crit when performing a coup-de-grace.

A (presumably physically weak) character lugging around a 10 lb weapon for the sole purpose of killing those who are unconscious seems borderline munchkin to me. Sure scythes are listed as weapons (instead of farm equipment) so doing so is legal... but, I can see how someone doing this would leave a bitter taste in a dm's mouth.

Moreso if the character considers themselves "good" aligned.

[TheIronGolem]

A (presumably physically weak) character lugging around a 10 lb weapon for the sole purpose of killing those who are unconscious seems borderline munchkin to me. Sure scythes are listed as weapons (instead of farm equipment) so doing so is legal... but, I can see how someone doing this would leave a bitter taste in a dm's mouth.

A CDG is applied to an enemy who, by definition, is out of the fight. In combat, it's almost never an optimal thing to do. Out of combat, it's almost always a formality. If the player is seriously trying to be a "munchkin" by picking a weapon for its ability to do CDG's, then he's failing so hard at it there's no harm in letting him do it.

Seriously, this is so cheese-free that you could serve it to a vegan.

Also, who said it was for the sole purpose of CDG's? Just because that was the major attraction for the player doesn't mean they wouldn't use the scythe in combat, should they ever find themselves in need of a melee weapon.


Moreso if the character considers themselves "good" aligned.

If there's a conflict with good alignment here, it's from the actual act of killing a helpless person, and the choice of weapon has no bearing on the matter.

[Zaydos]

See the weight argument I can accept, but there are encumbrance rules, just remind the player about them. Can they carry it and their stuff and be under light load? Let 'em, I've carried a weighted walking stick after seeing a poisonous snake, it was about 10 lbs and 8', top foot being metal (so you know about the same as a military scythe), you use it as a walking stick or lean it on your shoulder. It's pretty easy to carry.

I'm not an 8 Str wizard, because I'm not a wizard... Ok I'm not 8 Strength (unless this is 5e where I'm 8 or 9 Str), when I benched I did about 120-135 lbs (12-13 Str in 2e, 12 Str in 3.5) but I could carry a 10 lb stick around on my shoulder pretty much all day if I had a reason to. Now cutting wood will exhaust me... and my max bench press is probably closer to 100 lbs or less now (9 or 10 Str)... so yeah I might be 9 Str in D&D terms now (haven't benched in years to know; and that'd put me at 6 Str in 5e).

Could I carry it and a backpack full of 20 lbs of supplies? Not easily and I wouldn't do it without good reason because it'd make movement difficult (oh look medium load). But if they can get under their encumbrance cap (or you know have 12 strength to laugh it off) let 'em.

[Kantolin]

Well, if the game revolves around miners, sure. That might fall in that 1% where the reason is actually legit and makes for a decent to great story.

In honesty, this sounds like 'Why does the wizard even have a scythe'. Which I could accept, if the wizard was holed up in his library for the past 70 years of his elven life and suddenly was attacked by fire elementals or something. That wizard probably doesn't have a weapon of any sort on him, and probably doesn't have mage armour prepared or anything.

But the wizard then went out adventuring, so after the first immediately he went and bought something to protect himself better with. Fill a need and all.


A (presumably physically weak) character lugging around a 10 lb weapon for the sole purpose of killing those who are unconscious seems borderline munchkin to me.

While not quite a wizard, a sorceror can use a longspear. Those are 9lbs. If the problem is specifically 'scythe', there are a lot of weapons that are over 10lbs too - from greataxes (If you want to go 'executioner axe') to greatswords to glaives.

At least, this is on the presumption that the problem is 'weight', and possibly 'Also I don't like scythes'.

Personally, as a DM, I don't think I've ever seen anybody use a scythe. I'd be all for someone adding some weapon variety, but my PCs just go for greatswords most of the time.


The other points have been covered above, although I'd like to add extra weight to 'I need to kill a sleeping bear' being a good reason not to use a knife for this.

[Tohsaka Rin]

A wizard carrying a scythe? That's the stupidest thing I've ever-

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/chrono/images/a/a5/Magus2.png/revision/latest?cb=20110903191141

Oh.

Oh right.

Magus.

[Tvtyrant]

Well, if the game revolves around miners, sure. That might fall in that 1% where the reason is actually legit and makes for a decent to great story.

Though a scythe is not the same thing as a pick... so in such a game I personally would expect the latter, but not the former.

But that is just me.


I think you missed my point. D&D is an extremely campy game to begin with. The default setting is based on combining old myths with a century old kids book, and the newer iterations are basically "viking myth steam punk."

[Eldariel]

No. Running around "knowing" that the humans in your world can take multiple stabs to the throat without incident is metagaming.

That's not what the word means. If it happens in the game world, the inhabitants of said world have the capacity to know about it. Metagaming is bringing out of game information into the game. Knowing the game world and how it works (because of the rule set) is different; in D&D, creatures act like the rules dictate. As this is creature behaviour, creatures' knowledge of creature behaviour is the same. Just because full attack rules are nonsensical (realism-wise) doesn't mean experienced warriors can't understand that constantly retreating from a two-weapon fighter denies them their ability to efficiently use both of their weapons and that this strategy is disadvantageous against a two-hander in turn. Indeed, it'd be very strange for them not to understand this; they've been witnessing and experiencing the phenomenon all their lives. That's just how things work for them and that's the only reality they know. Metagaming would be preparing for enemies based on your DM's habits or assuming enemies you face are of appropriate CR because of the encounter design guidelines or things of that nature. The game world featuring plenty of humans who can survive having their throats slit is a feature of the rule set; something that happens in the game world because of the creatures and how weapons work. If you'd like to rule that slitting a throat/CdG always kills a character no matter their level or HP, it's a different matter. This isn't about any houserules though.

By the default rules, it's pretty safe to assume that lots of people have been Coup de Graced at one point or another and many of them have been high enough level/lucky enough to live through the first or the second attempt. It's also pretty obvious that larger weapons do more damage. Which weapon is the best for executing people? Well, anyone who cares can probably figure it out. Plenty of people have been executed, many of them certainly by Wizards whose spells make that one of their most efficient means of disposing of their enemies. Thus, Wizards (and spellcasters in general) are probably most likely to know these sorts of things. But frankly, I'd be extremely surprised if all adventurers didn't know. They fight multiple fights daily for their whole lives. Every single adventurer is an expert when it comes to combat and even Wizards get ½ BAB and Simple Weapon Proficiencies.


But that is beside the point. The only reason given, so far, for the use of a scythe is because of the x4 crit modifier. Now, you can take that to mean "the wizard knows that scythes more easily dispatch downed enemies than other weapons", but I'm more incredulous. I don't think living in a D&D world, and having a high intelligence, necessarily translates to "knows weapons systems", especially if he lacks proficiency.

It's not the x4 crit multiplier, it's because it's the most reliable wieldy weapon for executing helpless opponents. Mechanically this fact stems from the weapon has 2d4 damage and 4x crit multiplier, but in universe the knowledge is not "it does 2d4 damage and has a 4x crit multiplier", it's "this weapon is the most reliable means of executing helpless targets". Mechanics define in-universe facts and thus indirectly influence everything the characters do just like physics do in our world.

[Sicarius Victis]

Were you withing your rights? Yes.

Were you justified? Probably not.

A DM is perfectly within their rights to impose rules in their games. After all, their players don't HAVE to play with them. This does not, however, mean that they are JUSTIFIED to do so. You have given no good reason to justify your decision. You have given no insight into the character's personality or background, to justify that it would be OoC for them. If something is both powerful for RP and in mechanics, that does not mean that it is wrong to do. That does not mean that it is metagaming. That just means it has TWO reasons that it should be used, instead of one.

Until you explain to us why it is OoC for them, then our answer will have to be that it isn't justified.

[Erys]

Also, who said it was for the sole purpose of CDG's? .

The OP suggested that was the sole reason for their player to wanting a scythe. Seeing that you didn't bother to even know what you are replying too, I think we are done here.


In honesty, this sounds like 'Why does the wizard even have a scythe'. Which I could accept, if the wizard was holed up in his library for the past 70 years of his elven life and suddenly was attacked by fire elementals or something. That wizard probably doesn't have a weapon of any sort on him, and probably doesn't have mage armour prepared or anything.

But the wizard then went out adventuring, so after the first immediately he went and bought something to protect himself better with. Fill a need and all.

While not quite a wizard, a sorceror can use a longspear. Those are 9lbs. If the problem is specifically 'scythe', there are a lot of weapons that are over 10lbs too - from greataxes (If you want to go 'executioner axe') to greatswords to glaives.

At least, this is on the presumption that the problem is 'weight', and possibly 'Also I don't like scythes'.

Personally, as a DM, I don't think I've ever seen anybody use a scythe. I'd be all for someone adding some weapon variety, but my PCs just go for greatswords most of the time.


The other points have been covered above, although I'd like to add extra weight to 'I need to kill a sleeping bear' being a good reason not to use a knife for this.

For me, if you are a weak character you shouldn't be toting around heavy weapons, especially if they are only planning on using them out of combat.

A wizard carrying a scythe seems as useful as a life cleric carrying a great axe. When the intention shifts from daily use to 'I just carry this bulky, heavy thing so I can more easily kill the unconscious' you start edging to lines I don't like players to cross.


I think you missed my point. D&D is an extremely campy game to begin with. The default setting is based on combining old myths with a century old kids book, and the newer iterations are basically "viking myth steam punk."

Oh, I got your point. Some people don't mind ninja's in a 'medieval European-based fantasy' game. Others do. I allow a lot via backstory and the sad reality is most players who want scythes don't generally have sound story reasons- they just want the crit modifier; and their backstories are weak because of it.

[Eldariel]

For me, if you are a weak character you shouldn't be toting around heavy weapons, especially if they are only planning on using them out of combat.

A wizard carrying a scythe seems as useful as a life cleric carrying a great axe. When the intention shifts from daily use to 'I just carry this bulky, heavy thing so I can more easily kill the unconscious' you start edging to lines I don't like players to cross.

It's not only out of combat, it's against disabled opponents. There are Wizard/Sorcerer spells that open targets up for CdG for a handful of rounds at most. In those cases, it is very important to be expediently capable of finishing them off, and sometimes you happen to be the only one in position or the one who can afford the action (and sometimes you'll be forced to fight alone). Something like Wrack or Solipsism or even Sleep and its variants. Yes, Sleep has long duration but the target is just a single standard action away from being awakened (or a spell; there are spells specifically for rousing sleeping allies). If you manage to make a dangerous adversary fall asleep, it's absolutely crucial that they die before they get the chance to be awakened.

Morally it's really no more or less questionable than any other killing PCs do. The fact that the target was momentarily helpless means killing them most not be honorable (arguably), but it's certainly no more evil than any other kind of killing unless you had a choice in the matter (you always do, doesn't stop most PCs). Not that it matters; plenty of games feature evil PCs, and sometimes there are no lines.

[Kantolin]

A wizard carrying a scythe seems as useful as a life cleric carrying a great axe. When the intention shifts from daily use to 'I just carry this bulky, heavy thing so I can more easily kill the unconscious' you start edging to lines I don't like players to cross.

If the statement is 'This character is a pacifist, and thus it doesn't make sense that they are trying to kill the unconscious' then that would make sense.

But in that case, the problem is 'I am spending resources on killing the unconscious when that is against my character', not 'I am using a scythe'. That problem, in fact, is identical if the wizard/pacifist/lifecleric/whomever says, 'Oh I don't ever use this knife/sword, but I'm carrying it around so I can more easily kill the unconscious'.

(Using those two as examples, as the OP later mentioned that using a sword or dagger would suddenly be okay).

To compare, if the character is one who is okay with coup de grace at all, and they are a character who doesn't really use the weapon for other things, then it makes sense for them to use a scythe or an axe or something so it's less awful for them.

Especially after the first time they go to coup de grace something and the ogre doesn't die, and now the closest thing to them is a tasty tasty wizard.

It does sound like more of a problem is 'You shouldn't be coup de graceing people', and that's a separate problem. I mean, this particular problem sounds like someone saying, 'I want to capture people who are unconscious, so I'm buying manacles' and being lambasted and decried as a munchkin for not instead using rope? After you've totally tried to tie up an ogre and he broke through the rope once?

[eggynack]

For me, if you are a weak character you shouldn't be toting around heavy weapons, especially if they are only planning on using them out of combat.

A wizard carrying a scythe seems as useful as a life cleric carrying a great axe. When the intention shifts from daily use to 'I just carry this bulky, heavy thing so I can more easily kill the unconscious' you start edging to lines I don't like players to cross.

Why are you assuming this is out of combat only? Most of the point would be decapitating enemies that you've incapacitated with your spells. Because spells are a wizard's whole deal and such. Perfectly logical thing for a wizard to want and/or have. Also, if it were out of combat only, that seems super un-munchkiny, because that's not all that useful.

[AnachroNinja]

Seriously... A wizard wanting a scythe for the crit modifier is so far from optimization, munchkin behavior, or cheese that I honestly can't fathom how anyone is even arguing about it.

This is literally a character choice made to enhance an option that is already so suboptimal that it's ludicrous. Who CARES if he takes a scythe to coup de grace people? It's that such an integral part of your story and gameplay that it's unbalancing your game?

I'm going to come right out and say it, if you are banning scythes on non melee characters because it's overpowered to be able to full round action kill incapacitated foes or because you don't think their roleplay decisions make sense, you are a terrible GM.

[Dr.Samurai]

Follow this logic: You don't need to be proficient to stab or slash someone in their sleep. It's even in the rules, you automatically hit and get a crit when performing a coup-de-grace.
Yes, I know. If you needed proficiency, this wouldn't even be a discussion. Because he's not proficient.

As far as your personal, real life experience goes, let's be honest.
I've been completely honest with you this far so... I'll continue. Thanks for starting now though.

Unless you took a lot of martial arts classes, you're probably not proficient with ANY kind of melee weapon.
That is correct. I am proficient with exactly zero weapons.

Wizards in D&D are.
Yes, but not with scythes.

Outside the military, most real people don't know how to handle themselves in a life or death struggle. Wizards in D&D do. If you're not a soldier or a murderer, you've never intentionally killed someone. Wizards in D&D face that situation several times a day. Bottom line, they know how to handle themselves in a fight more than most real people ever will, even if fighting with weapons isn't their focus.
I just don't know what you're getting at here to be honest. You're almost making wizards sound like grizzled combat veterans that can do anything they set their mind to. You're describing a character, not wizards.

A wizard can more easily stab a sleeping person in the heart or throat or eye with a dagger. Or crush their skull with a rock. He is proficient with the dagger and the club. That means that your grizzled, experienced, rough and tumble Jason Bourne vancian spellcaster knows how to use a dagger and a club. But not a scythe. Yes, he auto-hits. But again, I'm not convinced that a wizard proficient with a dagger or club would think he'd do better standing over his enemy and swinging a weapon he doesn't know how to use. I don't buy into the idea that in D&D-land, it is simply common knowledge that the way you dispatch a sleeping enemy is with a scythe. I don't think it'd be a common practice, and therefore I don't think it'd be common knowledge. Incidentally, I don't think this is an unreasonable position to hold.

By the way... could someone explain (in all seriousness, as I simply can't picture how to use the scythe in battle), is he slashing people with the curved edge or stabbing them with the point? I'm guessing slashing, but... how do you do that with the weapon?

Comparing yourself to a D&D character is completely ludicrous.
The narrative throughout this thread that making judgements of the game world based on real life is inappropriate is ludicrous. What do you think the rules of the game are based on? Some *other* non-real world that doesn't exist? Quit being dramatic. We draw from the real world. Don't be silly.


A (presumably physically weak) character lugging around a 10 lb weapon for the sole purpose of killing those who are unconscious seems borderline munchkin to me. Sure scythes are listed as weapons (instead of farm equipment) so doing so is legal... but, I can see how someone doing this would leave a bitter taste in a dm's mouth.

Moreso if the character considers themselves "good" aligned.
Ah, a breath of fresh air!




That's not what the word means. If it happens in the game world, the inhabitants of said world have the capacity to know about it. Metagaming is bringing out of game information into the game. Knowing the game world and how it works (because of the rule set) is different; in D&D, creatures act like the rules dictate.
Yes, yes, yes. As I said before, I think we're getting into a topic outside the scope of this conversation. You think that the way the rules set work (a creature has X hit points, and a score against AC is a "hit", and until the hit points reach 0, the creature is fine) means that in the game world, inhabitants would know that knife strikes to the neck don't work against people.

I don't agree.

I think that is taking out-of-game information (how hit points work) and applying it in-game. As an example, an NPC sneaks up and grabs a character from behind, putting a knife to their throat. In real life, this is a tenuous situation, and your ally's life is in grave danger. In your game, your players chuckle and curb stomps the foolish would-be assassin for thinking knife strikes to the throat are life-threatening.


By the default rules, it's pretty safe to assume that lots of people have been Coup de Graced at one point or another and many of them have been high enough level/lucky enough to live through the first or the second attempt. It's also pretty obvious that larger weapons do more damage. Which weapon is the best for executing people? Well, anyone who cares can probably figure it out. Plenty of people have been executed, many of them certainly by Wizards whose spells make that one of their most efficient means of disposing of their enemies. Thus, Wizards (and spellcasters in general) are probably most likely to know these sorts of things. But frankly, I'd be extremely surprised if all adventurers didn't know. They fight multiple fights daily for their whole lives. Every single adventurer is an expert when it comes to combat and even Wizards get ½ BAB and Simple Weapon Proficiencies.
Right, this, I think, is the point of disagreement (or maybe, another point of disagreement). I just don't see this CDGing phenomenon spreading throughout the game world and informing everyone that adventures. In fact, this is the first time I've encountered the notion of a scythe being a standard adventuring tool for the sole purpose of CDGing helpless enemies. I'll just chalk this up to gaming experience, but this is just strange to me.

[Erys]

It's not only out of combat, it's against disabled opponents. There are Wizard/Sorcerer spells that open targets up for CdG for a handful of rounds at most. In those cases, it is very important to be expediently capable of finishing them off, and sometimes you happen to be the only one in position or the one who can afford the action (and sometimes you'll be forced to fight alone). Something like Wrack or Solipsism or even Sleep and its variants. Yes, Sleep has long duration but the target is just a single standard action away from being awakened (or a spell; there are spells specifically for rousing sleeping allies). If you manage to make a dangerous adversary fall asleep, it's absolutely crucial that they die before they get the chance to be awakened.

Morally it's really no more or less questionable than any other killing PCs do. The fact that the target was momentarily helpless means killing them most not be honorable (arguably), but it's certainly no more evil than any other kind of killing unless you had a choice in the matter (you always do, doesn't stop most PCs). Not that it matters; plenty of games feature evil PCs, and sometimes there are no lines.

Honestly, in my humble opinion that is worse!

I am going to use a weapon that I am not proficient in and that weights a LOT compared to my strength solely to try to kill incapacitated creatures and by proxy save spells slots. Because the years I spent learning magic has taught me one thing: sleep + coup de grace = win!

At my table that is pushing towards munchkin reasoning.


If the statement is 'This character is a pacifist, and thus it doesn't make sense that they are trying to kill the unconscious' then that would make sense.

But in that case, the problem is 'I am spending resources on killing the unconscious when that is against my character', not 'I am using a scythe'. That problem, in fact, is identical if the wizard/pacifist/lifecleric/whomever says, 'Oh I don't ever use this knife/sword, but I'm carrying it around so I can more easily kill the unconscious'.

(Using those two as examples, as the OP later mentioned that using a sword or dagger would suddenly be okay).

To compare, if the character is one who is okay with coup de grace at all, and they are a character who doesn't really use the weapon for other things, then it makes sense for them to use a scythe or an axe or something so it's less awful for them.

Especially after the first time they go to coup de grace something and the ogre doesn't die, and now the closest thing to them is a tasty tasty wizard.

It does sound like more of a problem is 'You shouldn't be coup de graceing people', and that's a separate problem. I mean, this particular problem sounds like someone saying, 'I want to capture people who are unconscious, so I'm buying manacles' and being lambasted and decried as a munchkin for not instead using rope? After you've totally tried to tie up an ogre and he broke through the rope once?

I give zero F's about coup de gracing people (save, if it was a lawful good character or if there are story reasons why a character would not do it).

I just said- for me- a player who wants to carry a heavy weapon they have no skill in solely to kill unconscious things is borderline munchkin.

To clarify your example: its like someone (who is physically weak) wanting to carry a man-catcher when manacles or rope would work just fine. You could do nearly the same damage with a pick; that weighs three pounds and makes WAY more sense for a muscle-challenged wizard to wield for such nefarious deeds.


Why are you assuming this is out of combat only? Most of the point would be decapitating enemies that you've incapacitated with your spells. Because spells are a wizard's whole deal and such. Perfectly logical thing for a wizard to want and/or have. Also, if it were out of combat only, that seems super un-munchkiny, because that's not all that useful.

Because the OP said so.

But on this vein of thinking; what is the point of getting into combat with a weapon you are not actually proficient in? Seems counter intuitive.

[FallenFallcrest]

I would say that there are many reasons where a scythe would be an interesting choice for a wizard, especially one with lots of ways to quickly knock someone out.

And even if there really weren't real combat benefits over more conventional weapons, why not just let the player do what he wants and finds interesting for his character? It isn't your job to needlessly police the players, just drive the story and setting forward. Does the player having a scythe interfere with that? No, in my opinion, it really doesn't. It *is* a real weapon, not a gardening tool, as is given in whatever source book you have. Like someone above said, you seem to be against it solely because it doesn't follow what you think a wizard (or anyone, it seems) should use.

But since you don't seem to actually be reading anyone's comments, and you seem to have only been seeking self indulgent justification instead of actual feedback, I doubt you will read this one either.

Pack up the topic, everyone, the OP left. May Gygax have mercy on her player's souls...

More seriously, I hope she just lets her players make the basic decisions that they want to. Quibbling over everything is just not fun. I personally enjoy letting the players do things that I personally wouldn't agree with because it makes the story and the setting partly theirs instead of just mine.

[TheIronGolem]

The OP suggested that was the sole reason for their player to wanting a scythe. Seeing that you didn't bother to even know what you are replying too, I think we are done here.

I obviously know more about what I was replying to than you do. Here:


One of my players, a wizard, wants to carry around a scythe, because "it's good at killing helpless things."


No suggestion here that it would only ever be used to kill helpless things. "Sole purpose" was something you added. Certainly we can infer that the utility for CDG's is the weapon's primary appeal to the player, but that's not the same thing as "I will only ever use this weapon to kill helpless creatures and will absolutely not use it as a combat weapon even if/when I run out of combat spells and am forced into melee".

It's also hardly a crime against RP to choose your equipment based on its ability to effectively facilitate the actions you want your character to perform. He wants to kill helpless opponents. Scythes are good at that. Therefore, he picked a scythe.

[Malimar]

Everyone's assuming the character is a weak, weedy, wussy wizard, because most wizards do dump str, but is that actually the case in this case? Str is only one of at least three stats a wizard can feel free to dump or pump at their discretion. What's the character's strength score? Because if it's actually, like, 12 or more, then the "the wizard is weak and shouldn't be carrying around a heavy execution implement" argument completely falls apart. (Even if not, it probably still just reflects OP's biases and desire to enforce what a generic wizard should look like and not the reality of what this individual character does look like.)

[Dr.Samurai]

Seriously... A wizard wanting a scythe for the crit modifier is so far from optimization, munchkin behavior, or cheese that I honestly can't fathom how anyone is even arguing about it.

This is literally a character choice made to enhance an option that is already so suboptimal that it's ludicrous. Who CARES if he takes a scythe to coup de grace people? It's that such an integral part of your story and gameplay that it's unbalancing your game?

I'm going to come right out and say it, if you are banning scythes on non melee characters because it's overpowered to be able to full round action kill incapacitated foes or because you don't think their roleplay decisions make sense, you are a terrible GM.
What an edgy proclamation...

Look, it isn't overpowered lol. The OP was pretty clear that it just doesn't make sense to her and it leaves a bad taste in her mouth. Mine too.

Overpowered? That full round action the wizard is spending on the CDG could be used to shut down the rest of the encounter. No one here, not one person on either side of this argument, has suggested that this combo is overpowered. (I haven't actually confirmed that. I'm going by memory from participation. So... correct me if I'm wrong lol.)

This is just a weak premise is all, and so far the justifications I've seen in this thread have done little to sway me. That's not to say that they don't make sense.

[Tvtyrant]

Oh, I got your point. Some people don't mind ninja's in a 'medieval European-based fantasy' game. Others do. I allow a lot via backstory and the sad reality is most players who want scythes don't generally have sound story reasons- they just want the crit modifier; and their backstories are weak because of it.

You do know that D&D is none of those things right? Common things in D&D that were not in medieval Europe includes:
Platemail
Repeating crossbow
Nunchaku
rapier
sai
trident
spiked armor
spiked chains
tower shields
every form of race specific weapons
magic
elves
dwarves
hobbits/halflings/gnomes
any magical creature
carriages
standardized currency
Adamantine
Darkwood
Dragonhide
Iron, Cold
Mithral
Silver, Alchemical
psionics
dragons
adventurers
market shop economies (outside of a few major cities)


Hilariously, what it did have was scythes.

[Zaydos]

What an edgy proclamation...

Look, it isn't overpowered lol. The OP was pretty clear that it just doesn't make sense to her and it leaves a bad taste in her mouth. Mine too.

Overpowered? That full round action the wizard is spending on the CDG could be used to shut down the rest of the encounter. No one here, not one person on either side of this argument, has suggested that this combo is overpowered. (I haven't actually confirmed that. I'm going by memory from participation. So... correct me if I'm wrong lol.)

This is just a weak premise is all, and so far the justifications I've seen in this thread have done little to sway me. That's not to say that they don't make sense.

But your reasons make no sense IRL. It's easier to kill a sleeping person with a wood axe than a dagger. Note how one of these isn't even weighted for combat (improvised weapon) and it's still better at it than a dagger. It's heavy and not worth lugging around as a tertiary weapon for a knight (daggers were worth while because they could punch through armor), and you know you can't just walk around town with a wood axe (a knife you can hide), but neither of those objections stand up in the case being talked about. And it's even easier with a 6 lb blade on a 6' stick.

The weight argument makes a lot more sense, but that's just what encumbrance rules are for. Str 8 wizard has trouble carrying a scythe and their base gear, if that's true then use the encumbrance rules (they are relatively realistic) if they can't manage to carry the scythe then they can't manage it, if they accept being medium encumbered then they are carrying a medium load.

[Dr.Samurai]

Fantasy based on medieval Europe has all of those things, minus the east-Asian stuff, which was the point.

[Erys]

I obviously know more about what I was replying to than you do. Here:



No suggestion here that it would only ever be used to kill helpless things. "Sole purpose" was something you added. Certainly we can infer that the utility for CDG's is the weapon's primary appeal to the player, but that's not the same thing as "I will only ever use this weapon to kill helpless creatures and will absolutely not use it as a combat weapon even if/when I run out of combat spells and am forced into melee".

It's also hardly a crime against RP to choose your equipment based on its ability to effectively facilitate the actions you want your character to perform. He wants to kill helpless opponents. Scythes are good at that. Therefore, he picked a scythe.

What other things will you do with that weapon you have no proficiency in?

As an awkward, heavy walking stick? Putting on a deep hooded robe to scare the elderly? Emulate your dreams of being a farmer? Eh, maybe not even that last one since, again, no proficiency.



Pack up the topic, everyone, the OP left.

True.

[Erys]

You do know that D&D is none of those things right? Common things in D&D that were not in medieval Europe includes:
Platemail
Repeating crossbow
Nunchaku
rapier
sai
trident
spiked armor
spiked chains
tower shields
every form of race specific weapons
magic
elves
dwarves
hobbits/halflings/gnomes
any magical creature
carriages
standardized currency
Adamantine
Darkwood
Dragonhide
Iron, Cold
Mithral
Silver, Alchemical
psionics
dragons
adventurers
market shop economies (outside of a few major cities)


Hilariously, what it did have was scythes.

It is remarkably hilarious what they did with scythes.

While your list is impressive and again, I do see your point, at the end of the day the DM has a vision of their world where the players share and expand on. For me, again, just me, if a player crafts a story justifying anything- then it is probably fine.

Most who try to justify using scythes are not taking the weapon because it fits some bad ass back story, they pick it because it does x4 crits and that means big numbers.

When the justification for anything is just to push big numbers, even if they are isolated instances, their backgrounds reflect their hollow goals and that makes me a sad panda.

[Dr.Samurai]

But your reasons make no sense IRL. It's easier to kill a sleeping person with a wood axe than a dagger.
Zaydos, would you mind explaining this a bit more, because I'm not seeing the point and I'm thinking maybe I can't see beyond my own perspective on this without being hit over the head with it (seriously no pun intended). I'm just having trouble seeing the significance of the axe, or how you think it is relevant.

[Zanos]

I'd just like to point out that a scythe is pretty much a wizard staff with a blade on it, if that hasn't been mentioned already.


When the justification for anything is just to push big numbers, even if they are isolated instances, their backgrounds reflect their hollow goals and that makes me a sad panda.
I'd rather not go too into this, but characters, on some level, have an understanding of the implications of the rules. Just as the barbarian understands that a greatsword is a better weapon to two hand than, say, a longsword, characters should generally have some understanding of the other properties of their equipment and abilities. Scythes, having particularly long blades but being generally unwieldy being particularly good at finishing off opponents that are incapacitated does not seem like much of a metagame stretch to me. It is making a decision with regards to power, but characters(as opposed to players) have to do that too, otherwise Evokers would be running Skill Focus(Basetweaving) instead of Spell Focus(Evocation).

[Zaydos]

Zaydos, would you mind explaining this a bit more, because I'm not seeing the point and I'm thinking maybe I can't see beyond my own perspective on this without being hit over the head with it (seriously no pun intended). I'm just having trouble seeing the significance of the axe, or how you think it is relevant.

Because the axe is an improvised weapon (i.e. automatically non-proficient) and despite that an unmoving target you can easily hit a space the size of someone's head and split it like a watermelon with a sledge-hammer (actually could hit the neck pretty easily since it's not hard to hit a 3 inch space). The argument you've used against carrying a scythe is a dagger does it better IRL, but that's not true, a wood axe does it much better than a dagger IRL, and a military scythe can be used in the exact same way here as a wood axe except with greater leverage, longer reach, and more weight i.e. more of each of the reasons a wood axe is better than a dagger or club for the job.

[Psyren]

Not only is this restriction arbitrary, it doesn't even make sense in-universe. Like, what happens if he tries to pick up a scythe? Does his hand cramp up? Does the scythe turn ethereal? Does Boccob 's avatar show up and kick him in the scrying orbs? Why exactly can't he carry a scythe if he chooses?

Encumbrance and proficiency are all you need to mechanically discourage this sort of thing. If he's willing to put up with those (or even compensate for them) to realize his concept, let him.

[eggynack]

Honestly, in my humble opinion that is worse!

I am going to use a weapon that I am not proficient in and that weights a LOT compared to my strength solely to try to kill incapacitated creatures and by proxy save spells slots. Because the years I spent learning magic has taught me one thing: sleep + coup de grace = win!

At my table that is pushing towards munchkin reasoning.

I don't see how this bears any resemblance to any definition of munchkinry that I'm aware of. It's a tool, one with a very specific purpose. I can't see anything wrong with that.




Because the OP said so.

But on this vein of thinking; what is the point of getting into combat with a weapon you are not actually proficient in? Seems counter intuitive.

The OP didn't say that. They said it was for killing helpless foes. But there can exist helpless foes in combat. Say you cast that classic of the wizarding arts, sleep. Some of the enemies fall helpless, so you kill them before they wake up to continue combat. It's a way to turn a temporary combat removal into a permanent one. And, of course, if you're using this for in-combat CDG, then that cleanly explains why you're using it despite a lack of proficiency.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm not buying the "in-combat" usage.

It doesn't seem to make sense for the wizard to wade into melee to CDG a creature he put to sleep, drawing OAs from any enemy that might still be conscious.

It makes way more sense for a warrior with power attack or sneak attack to do it. He's already in melee, and can put way more damage into the effect.

It doesn't make sense in-combat, it doesn't really make sense after combat (because they're going to die anyways).

When sleeping, it still doesn't make too much sense because the warriors and rogues can do it better.

All that said, I don't think the player in question was talking about doing it in combat, but since that's where the conversation has gone...

[TheIronGolem]

What other things will you do with that weapon you have no proficiency in?

As an awkward, heavy walking stick? Putting on a deep hooded robe to scare the elderly? Emulate your dreams of being a farmer? Eh, maybe not even that last one since, again, no proficiency.

Eat the -4 penalty and fight anyway, since this is probably a desperate situation.

Or spend a feat on Martial Weapon Profiency (Scythe).

Or dip a class that's proficient with scythes.

Valid choices, all.

[Eldariel]

Yes, yes, yes. As I said before, I think we're getting into a topic outside the scope of this conversation. You think that the way the rules set work (a creature has X hit points, and a score against AC is a "hit", and until the hit points reach 0, the creature is fine) means that in the game world, inhabitants would know that knife strikes to the neck don't work against people.

I don't agree.

I think that is taking out-of-game information (how hit points work) and applying it in-game. As an example, an NPC sneaks up and grabs a character from behind, putting a knife to their throat. In real life, this is a tenuous situation, and your ally's life is in grave danger. In your game, your players chuckle and curb stomps the foolish would-be assassin for thinking knife strikes to the throat are life-threatening.

It's not about how hit points work, that's irrelevant. Whether hit points represent X, Y or Z has nothing to do with this; just that certain creatures have certain durability and certain weapons are more likely to kill them in one hit than others. The implications of the system are the relevant part, and how that influences the characters.

In the case you represented, the assassin would still get to coup de grace the guy who was essentially helpless should he choose to do so. It would be life threatening though a seasoned adventurer is tough/lucky/whatever enough that them dying is still quite unlikely. It would still be a dangerous situation. However, still far less dangerous than IRL since the character simply can take more punishment than a normal human can. She's no longer a mere human. As such things don't exist in our world, it's hard to understand but most adventurers are greater than any human that has ever lived. Higher level ones can survive a jump at terminal velocity reliably. Yes, it still hurts like hell and yes, their life is still somewhat at peril but whereas a normal human might have a 1% chance to survive, they have a 1% chance of death (if even that; first massive damage needs to get rolled and then they need to roll 1 on that and the reroll).

Same with non-humans. Take giants for instance. They can be Coup de Graced but it's just extremely unlikely to work if you use a Dagger (Hill Giant would have to roll 2 or lower on the Fort-save on average so 10% chance with average rolls). Which incidentally matches our real life experience: you wouldn't try to Coup de Grace an elephant or a grizzly bear with a dagger. That'd be idiotic. You also probably shouldn't use a dagger on a bear of a man unless you have nothing else available. Daggers are good for their relative ease of concealment, not their combat potential. They have less value in places where it is legal to be openly armed, certainly much less for anyone who plans to slay Dragons.


I don't see any other sensible way to run the system. It makes no sense for the creatures to pretend there are no more durable humans than the ones who anyone can kill with a dagger if those exist clear as day, and in plentiful numbers. It makes no sense for characters to pretend the world functions in a way other than the way in which it functions. There's no guiding principle nor logic otherwise. It's a big deal if someone can swim in lava and live to tell the tale - it makes no sense if someone does indeed survive a lava immersion and then everyone begins to pretend that didn't happen.


Right, this, I think, is the point of disagreement (or maybe, another point of disagreement). I just don't see this CDGing phenomenon spreading throughout the game world and informing everyone that adventures. In fact, this is the first time I've encountered the notion of a scythe being a standard adventuring tool for the sole purpose of CDGing helpless enemies. I'll just chalk this up to gaming experience, but this is just strange to me.

I wouldn't expect every Wizard to carry one. However, every Wizard intent on disabling and killing things would probably give it due consideration, figure if they can afford the weight and go from there since it is the best tool for the job, particularly when dealing with some really durable things. If not, they'd probably carry other good finisher weapons; Picks, Axes, etc. When you're really good at temporarily disabling targets and really bad at killing them, it's just a part of the job description. And hell, if you manage to invisibly sneak up on a sleeping Frost Giant terrorizing the village, you'll probably rather maximize your chances of killing them in one shot rather than let them wake up.

Information travels. Best practices travel. If there's a need, such as lots of beings adept on disabling and inept on killing with the need to kill (probably a large swathe of people in a pseudo-medieval average D&D world)

[Erys]

I'd rather not go too into this, but characters, on some level, have an understanding of the implications of the rules. Just as the barbarian understands that a greatsword is a better weapon to two hand than, say, a longsword, characters should generally have some understanding of the other properties of their equipment and abilities. Scythes, having particularly long blades but being generally unwieldy being particularly good at finishing off opponents that are incapacitated does not seem like much of a metagame stretch to me. It is making a decision with regards to power, but characters(as opposed to players) have to do that too, otherwise Evokers would be running Skill Focus(Basetweaving) instead of Spell Focus(Evocation).

There is a line to walk here.

If I have a low strength and no real martial training; would it not be more sensible to both the player and character to use a pick instead of a scythe to go about killing people when they are defenseless?

[CharonsHelper]

When sleeping, it still doesn't make too much sense because the warriors and rogues can do it better.

Except those warriors & rogues will be busy with any foes which are still up and fighting, while for the first few levels the wizard is limited enough in their spell-casting that they sometimes have to use either a crossbow or cantrips, and doing a CDG on a foe they put to sleep the first round is probably more valuable than either of those things.

It's a very niche thing to do, and hauling around a scythe to do it effectively is a heavy cost, but it would be useful from time to time.

[Erys]

Eat the -4 penalty and fight anyway, since this is probably a desperate situation.

Or spend a feat on Martial Weapon Profiency (Scythe).

Or dip a class that's proficient with scythes.

Valid choices, all.

That is all fine and dandy, but not at all what was being proposed in the OP.

I tell you what though, if a player eats a feat or dips in a class to get the proficiency I will appreciate what they are trying to do a lot more than one who takes a scythe solely to kill the helpless easier.

[Eldariel]

There is a line to walk here.

If I have a low strength and no real martial training; would it not be more sensible to both the player and character to use a pick instead of a scythe to go about killing people when they are defenseless?

Depends. Pick weights less but kills tough targets much less reliably. Do you expect to use it against untrained humans, master warriors or some large creatures? The more durable the target, the more you should favour the more damaging weapon. And on the other hand, how much other stuff do you need to carry? Does the scythe weight you down problematically? If it does, you should consider if the increase in reliable lethality is sufficient to make up for the encumbrance. You should also remember though that the less strength you have, the more reliant you are on your weapon. A strong, experienced man can kill a bear with bare arms but a scrawny one will need the biggest thing they can wield.

[Zanos]

There is a line to walk here.

If I have a low strength and no real martial training; would it not be more sensible to both the player and character to use a pick instead of a scythe to go about killing people when they are defenseless?
That would depend on the characters other equipment. If they have the space for the 10lbs the scythe weighs without being burdened, I see no reason to not use one. That said, an 8 str character has a preciously small budget for equipment weight at low levels, so a pick would probably make more sense for them in many cases.


It doesn't seem to make sense for the wizard to wade into melee to CDG a creature he put to sleep, drawing OAs from any enemy that might still be conscious.

It doesn't, and they probably wouldn't bother if the square they would CDG from is threatened.



It makes way more sense for a warrior with power attack or sneak attack to do it. He's already in melee, and can put way more damage into the effect.

Not really? CDG hits automatically and crits automatically, and the creature has to roll a fort save of 10+damage to not die. A scythe crits for 20 on average even with 10 str, so 20 damage and DC 30 fort should drop pretty much anything at the levels sleep is effective.



It doesn't make sense in-combat, it doesn't really make sense after combat (because they're going to die anyways).

It makes sense in combat if the condition causing the opponent to become helpless is going to end soon, or they'll be healed. I'll agree that out of combat it doesn't really matter. You can just stab them with a knife until they're dead.



When sleeping, it still doesn't make too much sense because the warriors and rogues can do it better.

Low level wizards have few spells to use, and are going to spend a lot of actions in combat firing a crossbow or being idle. Using his actions in combat to CDG opponents is more efficient than making the warrior or rogue do it. And while they're technically better at it, it's like arguing a 2 ton bomb does a better job of killing a person than emptying a magazine into their head. Both are plenty.

Keep in mind that an ally can end the sleep effect by taking a standard action to awaken the creature. You're going to want to prevent that.

[Puke]

I'm female.


That's the point - there's no need for him to carry around such a stupid thing when almost anything else will do. Why won't anybody get it?

Hello.

I get it. You are pretty annoyed by the fact a player asks for somethings that makes no sense to you.

The wizard wants a scyte. Let him.

You have the right to say now, but it is a bad answer to give him, because you can't explain why.

Your player is a wizard. He wants a scyte. To kill helpless peoples. Let him try. If he fails, he'll eventually drop the scyte. I don't see any good reason to forbit it.
The "it makes no sense" does not work. Because it is the will of the character. The character is portayed by the player. If the character is obsessed with something, you better encourage it that forbid it because if you do you will create frustration.

And I don't see where you find this choice "metagaming". To me, metagaming is when you know something your character does not, and use it ingame.

If you really want to find a reason, you can still tell him it's too heavy, or he may get hurt carrying it.
To me, these are quite good reasons why he would not be able to carry it.
But here, that's not arbitrary denial...

[Dr.Samurai]

Because the axe is an improvised weapon (i.e. automatically non-proficient) and despite that an unmoving target you can easily hit a space the size of someone's head and split it like a watermelon with a sledge-hammer (actually could hit the neck pretty easily since it's not hard to hit a 3 inch space). The argument you've used against carrying a scythe is a dagger does it better IRL, but that's not true, a wood axe does it much better than a dagger IRL, and a military scythe can be used in the exact same way here as a wood axe except with greater leverage, longer reach, and more weight i.e. more of each of the reasons a wood axe is better than a dagger or club for the job.
Thanks Zaydos.

Maybe I'm not being clear, though I've mentioned proficiency each time, but I'm not trying to argue that the dagger is objectively better. My point is more that I don't think a wizard would opt to use a scythe to dispatch enemies simply because he isn't proficient with one. He doesn't know how to use it.

On top of his lack of proficiency, a polearm, especially a scythe with its mid-staff handle and curving blade, is more unwieldly than an axe or sword. So even if he lacks proficiency in both, it makes more sense to me if a wizard opts to carry around an axe than if he decides to pick up the scythe.

The scythe just seems too meta-gamey to me because of the lack of proficiency and the size and build of the weapon. This is not something that anyone can just pick up and start using well. And when you bring in the "well, he is using it against sleeping enemies only" then again I think it's only suitable for certain campaigns, and those would be the ones where adventurers are very aware of what they're going to be doing. The Heroes of the Lance didn't carry around scythes, neither did the Fellowship of the Ring, or the Companions of Mithral Hall. There is a narrative there that drives the story and the characters. No one is sitting around thinking "Oh right, if we come across sleeping enemies, a scythe would be much better to use to assassinate them with..."

But I could see adventurers in a guild, I guess, that specifically went around killing stuff and looting places, and sharing information with other adventuring parties... then I guess I could see something like what Eldariel is describing. But I don't think that's every campaign and I don't think it should be assumed.

[TheIronGolem]

That is all fine and dandy, but not at all what was being proposed in the OP.

We don't know that. The OP didn't tell us anything about the player's choices beyond "wizard" and "scythe". I wouldn't even call "low STR" a reliable assumption given the context in which she's mentioned it (i.e. an implied consequence of "wizard").


I tell you what though, if a player eats a feat or dips in a class to get the proficiency I will appreciate what they are trying to do a lot more than one who takes a scythe solely to kill the helpless easier.

Even if they don't, and the scythe is only ever used for CDG's, then proficiency (or lack thereof) isn't an issue, because a CDG always hits. This isn't some loophole in the rules that our scythe-murder wizard is exploiting, it's the whole point of a CDG. You're not using the weapon for combat in that moment, you're using it to murder a helpless person, which is much easier. When using the weapon that way, it doesn't matter whether or not you're trained in using the weapon in battle. Aztec priests who performed human sacrifices probably weren't also expert knife-fighters.

[Erys]

Depends. Pick weights less but kills tough targets much less reliably. Do you expect to use it against untrained humans, master warriors or some large creatures? The more durable the target, the more you should favour the more damaging weapon. And on the other hand, how much other stuff do you need to carry? Does the scythe weight you down problematically? If it does, you should consider if the increase in reliable lethality is sufficient to make up for the encumbrance. You should also remember though that the less strength you have, the more reliant you are on your weapon. A strong, experienced man can kill a bear with bare arms but a scrawny one will need the biggest thing they can wield.

The only reason the person wanted a scythe is because "it's good at killing helpless things."

The character in question is a wizard and presumably is not physically strong.

I find a wizard using a scythe for that singular purpose to be silly and a pick to be a minor improvement because at least it is not some heavy awkward two handed weapon. In theory a pick can hang from your belt.

All that said, this was not at my table. While players at my table generally only want to use a scythe to push big crit numbers (and their backstories usually reflect their single focused goal by being one dimensional) just wanting to use a scythe is not enough for me to say "no".

Everything I have said is based on the situation presented by the OP; and while I don't know if I would allow a wizard to carry a scythe just for that purpose or not- even if I did, the very idea leaves a bad taste in my mouth. No different than if someone asking for the spell nerve skittle because they realized it pretty much will auto kill any dragon.

I may or may not allow it, but either way- I don't have to like it.

[Erys]

We don't know that. The OP didn't tell us anything about the player's choices beyond "wizard" and "scythe". I wouldn't even call "low STR" a reliable assumption given the context in which she's mentioned it (i.e. an implied consequence of "wizard").


We do know the player wanted it because "it's good at killing helpless things."

But, you are right. I presumed low strength because 'wizard'... and if the player is munchkin enough to want a scythe, they are almost certainly going to min/max their stats.

[eggynack]

It doesn't seem to make sense for the wizard to wade into melee to CDG a creature he put to sleep, drawing OAs from any enemy that might still be conscious.
There aren't necessarily going to be enemies between you and unconscious enemies in such a way that you need to draw AoO's to make an approach. Sure, it may happen sometimes, but you're really in it for those other times when that's not the case.


It makes way more sense for a warrior with power attack or sneak attack to do it. He's already in melee, and can put way more damage into the effect.
There could always be several sleeping enemies. Or maybe you're closer to the sleeping enemy in question.


It doesn't make sense in-combat, it doesn't really make sense after combat (because they're going to die anyways).
So, it makes sense in combat. It's not the greatest most efficient plan ever in combat, but it has utility there. And, y'know, all these problems you're citing with the scythe plan just makes scythes less powerful, and thus less of a minus flavor plus power proposition.


Maybe I'm not being clear, though I've mentioned proficiency each time, but I'm not trying to argue that the dagger is objectively better. My point is more that I don't think a wizard would opt to use a scythe to dispatch enemies simply because he isn't proficient with one. He doesn't know how to use it.

He doesn't need to know how to use it. Doesn't even really want to. In this particular role, the scythe is really more of a tool than a weapon. Something that does a single job in a single sort of situation, and you have the capability to make such situations come up from time to time. So, rather, he does know how to use it, because everyone knows how to use it, because it's really easy to use for this role. It only makes sense to argue that a dagger makes more sense if the wizard would be better at this job with the dagger, and they wouldn't be. Because, in a sense, the wizard knows better how to use the scythe for this job than they know how to use the dagger for this job.



The scythe just seems too meta-gamey to me because of the lack of proficiency and the size and build of the weapon. This is not something that anyone can just pick up and start using well. And when you bring in the "well, he is using it against sleeping enemies only" then again I think it's only suitable for certain campaigns, and those would be the ones where adventurers are very aware of what they're going to be doing. The Heroes of the Lance didn't carry around scythes, neither did the Fellowship of the Ring, or the Companions of Mithral Hall. There is a narrative there that drives the story and the characters. No one is sitting around thinking "Oh right, if we come across sleeping enemies, a scythe would be much better to use to assassinate them with..."
Why only particular campaigns? Unless sleep is spontaneously leaving your list depending on the campaign, it should be useful all the time. Sure, it'll be extra useful if you're also assassinating, but that's not the prime utility.

Edit:
The only reason the person wanted a scythe is because "it's good at killing helpless things."

The character in question is a wizard and presumably is not physically strong.

I find a wizard using a scythe for that singular purpose to be silly and a pick to be a minor improvement because at least it is not some heavy awkward two handed weapon. In theory a pick can hang from your belt.
But a pick is less good at this particular job. You may say it's good enough, but that just means that pushing things beyond that point at the cost of other resources is the opposite of munchkinry.

All that said, this was not at my table. While players at my table generally only want to use a scythe to push big crit numbers (and their backstories usually reflect their single focused goal by being one dimensional) just wanting to use a scythe is not enough for me to say "no".


Everything I have said is based on the situation presented by the OP; and while I don't know if I would allow a wizard to carry a scythe just for that purpose or not- even if I did, the very idea leaves a bad taste in my mouth. No different than if someone asking for the spell nerve skittle because they realized it pretty much will auto kill any dragon.
First, I think you mean shivering touch, as well as, completely separately, nerveskitter. Second, shivering touch is an incredibly powerful spell that can completely drop high powered foes. It verges on broken. A scythe is... not that. Very much not that. Almost the opposite of that, really. I mean, you folks keep pointing out these reasons that this plan isn't all that good, and, on top of that, you're at best eating up actions that could be used to cast spells. It's a low cost and low reward strategy for a rare situation that might come up a bit more often if you play your cards right. Drawing a line between a wizard with a scythe and any sort of min-maxing, or munchkinry, or whatever else you'd like to call it, seems ludicrous given all that.

[Zanos]

I think most of the objections are stemming from the scythe being a practical martial weapon at all(spoilers: it isn't unmodified) rather than the scythe being in the hands of a wizard specifically.

[Strigon]

I'm not buying the "in-combat" usage.

It doesn't seem to make sense for the wizard to wade into melee to CDG a creature he put to sleep, drawing OAs from any enemy that might still be conscious.

It makes way more sense for a warrior with power attack or sneak attack to do it. He's already in melee, and can put way more damage into the effect.

It doesn't make sense in-combat, it doesn't really make sense after combat (because they're going to die anyways).

When sleeping, it still doesn't make too much sense because the warriors and rogues can do it better.

All that said, I don't think the player in question was talking about doing it in combat, but since that's where the conversation has gone...

You're right. The scythe is a suboptimal way of doing things. This was established on the first page.
However, whether or not the scythe is actually a good idea isn't important to a justification for having it. What's important is that the character believes it's a reasonable thing to do. Considering it's a big, heavy stick with a sharp blade on one end that can easily decapitate a foe, the Wizard - especially one not well-versed in combat - would have reason to believe it would be an effective weapon.
There's also the possibility that the character also believes the scythe is cool, and wants to use it for that reason. He - like the player - may recognize that it's inefficient, but want to do it anyway to make himself look or feel more awesome.



Yes, yes, yes. As I said before, I think we're getting into a topic outside the scope of this conversation. You think that the way the rules set work (a creature has X hit points, and a score against AC is a "hit", and until the hit points reach 0, the creature is fine) means that in the game world, inhabitants would know that knife strikes to the neck don't work against people.
...
I think that is taking out-of-game information (how hit points work) and applying it in-game. As an example, an NPC sneaks up and grabs a character from behind, putting a knife to their throat. In real life, this is a tenuous situation, and your ally's life is in grave danger. In your game, your players chuckle and curb stomps the foolish would-be assassin for thinking knife strikes to the throat are life-threatening.

Fluff AC/HP/CDGs however you want. Whether people are able to shrug off daggers to the throat, or they're just as lethal but somehow helpless foes dodge them often, is irrelevant. Mechanically, a scythe is far more likely to kill on a CDG than a dagger. That is an objective fact. Whatever the justification is for that fact, the characters in-game will know it, and it can be used as justification for using a scythe.

That is, of course, assuming in your game you go with RAW CDGs. You could very well have changed them on the basis that they don't make sense*, but if that's the case you shouldn't be arguing that someone in an entirely different game be banned from using their character concept because you changed the rules for your game.

*I mean, if you did that then one can only assume that you've changed all the rules that don't make sense - which would take years and result in a game that looks nothing like D&D - or, having read one too many ridiculous rules, upon coming to the section on CDGs you promptly smashed the nearest display case, screaming "The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!"

[killem2]

His backstory makes it seem ridiculous to me, and what he intends to build almost the opposite of a Grim Reaper Wannabe.

I don't know, but scythes have always struck me as fairly ridiculous. By no means would every wizard carry a farming implement around to coup-de-grace fallen foes; scythes are big and bulky and not very wizardly. I asked him if he would rather use a dagger or a sword of some kind, but he refused saying that wizards are generally smarter than everyone, so he would know that they could CDG better than a knife. Scythes are farm implements that can be weaponized, but they are still farm implements.

Except by raw, anyone can wield whatever they want and use it. There are penalties for a reason. You were justified to make such a call as long as you know you are changing RAW. It doesn't matter what you fee is wizardly or not. Player's even though it's fictional, are still in control of what their players want to do. Who the hell cares if he wants to carry a scythe. He'll have e a –4 penalty on attack rolls. And you know what if he wanted to use a LARGE one, he would have a -8 but he could still do it.

However, you both suck at making an argument because a farmer is going to use a knife well before they would be using a scythe. They would be using a Sickle before they use a damn Scythe. Regardless a player should not have to justify why they can do something with the in the rules of the game.

So, overall, even though I've been GM/DMing for over 6 years straight now, I'll side with players in situations like this.

[Dr.Samurai]

There aren't necessarily going to be enemies between you and unconscious enemies in such a way that you need to draw AoO's to make an approach. Sure, it may happen sometimes, but you're really in it for those other times when that's not the case.

There could always be several sleeping enemies. Or maybe you're closer to the sleeping enemy in question.
I agree. The point is simply to whittle down how often this particular tactic may come into play. And it isn't merely drawing AoOs to get to the helpless enemy (since the wizard is likely on the backline), but also that performing a CDG also provokes an AoO.


So, it makes sense in combat. It's not the greatest most efficient plan ever in combat, but it has utility there. And, y'know, all these problems you're citing with the scythe plan just makes scythes less powerful, and thus less of a minus flavor plus power proposition.
It was never a power issue. At least not for me. Don't particularly care. If a dagger dealt 2d4 damage and did x4 on a crit, and the wizard wanted to CDG enemies with it, I'd be fine with it.

It's deciding to carry around an awkward heavy weapon he doesn't know how to use that rubs me the wrong way. Mind you, I've already said banning it doesn't make sense, since it exists in-world and he'll get one anyway. I'm only explaining why I don't think it makes sense, despite this notion that there are flyers tacked to poster boards describing how best to utilize scythes on the adventurers guildhouse outside of every dungeon :smalltongue:.


He doesn't need to know how to use it. Doesn't even really want to. In this particular role, the scythe is really more of a tool than a weapon. Something that does a single job in a single sort of situation, and you have the capability to make such situations come up from time to time. So, rather, he does know how to use it, because everyone knows how to use it, because it's really easy to use for this role. It only makes sense to argue that a dagger makes more sense if the wizard would be better at this job with the dagger, and they wouldn't be. Because, in a sense, the wizard knows better how to use the scythe for this job than they know how to use the dagger for this job.
Yeah, the previous post about the DC 30 is definitely making me see it more in this light.


Why only particular campaigns? Unless sleep is spontaneously leaving your list depending on the campaign, it should be useful all the time. Sure, it'll be extra useful if you're also assassinating, but that's not the prime utility.
I'm referring to intent. In a more organic campaign where the heroes are following a plot and dungeon delving and adventure are consequences of their journey, it strikes me as less appropriate.

But if you're heading to your local adventurer's guild and talking shop with other experienced adventuring parties before hitting the general store for all of your delving needs, I can see the atmosphere being described of "best practices" and "the right tool for the job" and the intent of having something on hand to kill sleeping enemies.

[TheIronGolem]

We do know the player wanted it because "it's good at killing helpless things."

But, you are right. I presumed low strength because 'wizard'... and if the player is munchkin enough to want a scythe, they are almost certainly going to min/max their stats.

Except that the scythe is not evidence of munchkinry. It's evidence that the player wants his character to be effective at one particular niche activity.

And if they do have a low STR, then their CDG's will be less effective, which further undermines accusations of munchkinry.

Even if we assume that the player goes all-out in optimizing the wizard's ability to perform CDG's, that still doesn't make a munchkin.

[Erys]

First, I think you mean shivering touch, as well as, completely separately, nerveskitter. Second, shivering touch is an incredibly powerful spell that can completely drop high powered foes. It verges on broken. A scythe is... not that. Very much not that. Almost the opposite of that, really. I mean, you folks keep pointing out these reasons that this plan isn't all that good, and, on top of that, you're at best eating up actions that could be used to cast spells. It's a low cost and low reward strategy for a rare situation that might come up a bit more often if you play your cards right. Drawing a line between a wizard with a scythe and any sort of min-maxing, or munchkinry, or whatever else you'd like to call it, seems ludicrous given all that.

I may, haven't played 3.5 in a few years.

Point remains. Although I may or may not have allowed such a thing, in either scenario I find it bad form for a (presumably) weak wizard to want a scythe explicitly to kill helpless things. You can think it is great all you want, I don't.

If, in character, the idea is to cast spells that incapacitate and then go coup de grace crazy, I stand by the idea that a pick is at least marginally more palatable. But really the wizard should probably use a weapon they are proficient in (even if technically they don't have to).

[Erys]

Except that the scythe is not evidence of munchkinry. It's evidence that the player wants his character to be effective at one particular niche activity.

And if they do have a low STR, then their CDG's will be less effective, which further undermines accusations of munchkinry.

Even if we assume that the player goes all-out in optimizing the wizard's ability to perform CDG's, that still doesn't make a munchkin.

Wanting the weapon that does x4 crit sans proficiency is not evidence of munchkinery?

Ummm.... whatever man.

From my experience anything relating to the scythe have been munchkin-orientated. Though not always 100% optimally enacted.

[TheIronGolem]

Wanting the weapon that does x4 crit sans proficiency is not evidence of munchkinery?

Correct. It's evidence of optimization. Optimization does not automatically imply munchkinry. Particularly when what is being optimized is a niche activity that rarely has a significant impact on the outcome of the situation.


From my experience anything relating to the scythe have been munchkin-orientated.

This is very unlikely, given the unreasonably inclusive definition of the term you appear to be working from.

[Sayt]

Personally I'd use a light pick in this situation, due to lower weight and easier handedness.

And as a GM, I prefer not to ban choices which would be strange in setting, the setting just treats thme as being strange.

Also, sidenote, didn't most of the 50 bazillion different pole arms arise from peasants strapping barnyard cutlery to poles so they could go nobble the French English Prussian neighbours.

[AvatarVecna]

Wanting the weapon that does x4 crit sans proficiency is not evidence of munchkinery?

Ummm.... whatever man.

From my experience anything relating to the scythe have been munchkin-orientated. Though not always 100% optimally enacted.

Scythes aren't optimal though. All other things being equal, a Scythe is only an objectively better weapon than a Greataxe if 1) you have a really high Str score, 2) you have proficiency with a Scythe but not a Greataxe, 3) you're attacking a target that you can only hit on a natural 20, or 4) You're making a Coup De Grace and you don't have a Str penalty. If you have a Str penalty, a Greataxe is just as good for CDG as a Scythe. And a Greatsword will outperform either one in most situations, as will Kaorti resin weapons, several exotic weapons, Eldritch Blast, freaking Reserve feats, and many other things.

A scythe isn't really optimal for anything other than a Coup De Grace, and even then, it's only optimal if the wielder doesn't have a Str penalty.

EDIT: And there isn't nothing particular optimal about a wizard wielding one. Objecting to the wizard wielding a scythe purely for making Coup De Graces on the grounds that it's filthy munckinry just displays your own limited knowledge of the game.

EDIT 2: After running some more quick numbers, it seems that even against a target you only hit on a Nat 20, a Greataxe still averages more damage than a Scythe unless the wielder has a ludicrous Str mod.

[eggynack]

I agree. The point is simply to whittle down how often this particular tactic may come into play. And it isn't merely drawing AoOs to get to the helpless enemy (since the wizard is likely on the backline), but also that performing a CDG also provokes an AoO.
It is indeed possibly non-viable. Worth note, in the set of possible uses, is situations where the wizard is alone for whatever reason. Wizards have difficulty closing out encounters when they're forced to go solo, and the ability to finish off singular sleeping enemies has its utility in that context where it may not in a group context. I think I recall the scythe being mentioned in those terms in the past, as a sort of mediocre fighter replacement.


It was never a power issue. At least not for me. Don't particularly care. If a dagger dealt 2d4 damage and did x4 on a crit, and the wizard wanted to CDG enemies with it, I'd be fine with it.

It's deciding to carry around an awkward heavy weapon he doesn't know how to use that rubs me the wrong way. Mind you, I've already said banning it doesn't make sense, since it exists in-world and he'll get one anyway. I'm only explaining why I don't think it makes sense, despite this notion that there are flyers tacked to poster boards describing how best to utilize scythes on the adventurers guildhouse outside of every dungeon :smalltongue:.
I mean, the wizard knows how to use it for this. In a way, I actually think it makes more sense than a dagger, in terms of optics. With a dagger, you say, "That's a wizard that's usually going to cast spells, but they might also be scrapping for some melee combat." The scythe signals that the wizard is likely never going to be directly fighting anything, but that they'll chop your head clean off if they can bring combat to that point. It makes the character feel less combative, more opportunistic. exactly like a wizard should be. Sure, in terms of real life utility, you may prefer your tools to have multiple uses, because such is the nature of efficiency, but for a character, I like the idea that you're sending this really direct visual message. You're a wizard that's confident enough in their ability to incapacitate your opponents that you'll carry around this huge weapon for that exact situation, and you fully intend to use the weapon for that purpose because you don't get involved in fights that you don't plan to finish.



I'm referring to intent. In a more organic campaign where the heroes are following a plot and dungeon delving and adventure are consequences of their journey, it strikes me as less appropriate.

But if you're heading to your local adventurer's guild and talking shop with other experienced adventuring parties before hitting the general store for all of your delving needs, I can see the atmosphere being described of "best practices" and "the right tool for the job" and the intent of having something on hand to kill sleeping enemies.
Well, by premise, the characters have some opportunity to purchase things, and I think it makes sense in any context where the characters are taking time out of adventuring to focus on equipping themselves. There's some planning intrinsic to such a situation, after all.


Point remains. Although I may or may not have allowed such a thing, in either scenario I find it bad form for a (presumably) weak wizard to want a scythe explicitly to kill helpless things. You can think it is great all you want, I don't.
Not really clear why not though. Seems like a good match.


If, in character, the idea is to cast spells that incapacitate and then go coup de grace crazy, I stand by the idea that a pick is at least marginally more palatable. But really the wizard should probably use a weapon they are proficient in (even if technically they don't have to).
Were the pick better for the job, then sure, but it's not, so it doesn't seem more palatable to me.

Wanting the weapon that does x4 crit sans proficiency is not evidence of munchkinery?
Why would it be evidence of munchkinry? I have no idea what the two have to do with each other. It's not like proficiency alters the critical multiplier. Realistically, scythes are mostly good for specifically this. If you're actually trying to crit, you really want a better crit range.



From my experience anything relating to the scythe have been munchkin-orientated. Though not always 100% optimally enacted.
I mean, if one of your definitions of "munchkin" is, "Has a character that uses a scythe," then sure, but the connection seems dubious otherwise.

[Exocist]

Because he wants to look badass like this (https://youtu.be/VLcuo_atfn8?t=1m16s).

And to be fair, I would want to look badass like that too...

[Zaydos]

I can think of many non-combat uses for a six-foot pole with a blade on the end. Clearing the path before you (farming scythe), being an 7 to 8 ft pole (military scythe), keeping snakes at arm's reach, a walking stick, menacing peasants, balancing pole, tool for drawing a line in the sand, making people think you aren't a wizard (for some reason intelligent enemies tends to target unarmored dagger/staff/crossbow wielders/unarmed combatants first), providing a conversation piece, poking things, prodding things, propping open doors, a lever.

Now of course military scythe is more practical, it's a bit longer and better for adventuring uses.

[Erys]

I am amazed that anyone outside of myself can evaluate my own experiences; kudos to you TheIronGolem for being a wizard. ...

Anyhow.

For me, unless there was a fantastic backstory presented beforehand, I would endure the same bitter taste if a player made the same wizard but used a great axe to coup de grace instead.

Both a scythe and great axe are vastly superior to coup de grace with than say, a dagger. Or even a long sword for that matter. Both are optimal, especially when you opt to side step needing to know how to use them proficiently and can still maximize their damage potential (read: crit).

[AvatarVecna]

For me, AvatarVecna, unless there was a fantastic backstory presented beforehand, I would endure the same bitter taste if a player made the same wizard but used a great axe to coup de grace instead.

Both a scythe and great axe are vastly superior to coup de grace with than say, a dagger. Or even a long sword for that matter. Both are optimal, especially when you opt to side step needing to know how to use them proficiently and can still maximize their damage potential (read: crit).

A wizard wandering into melee with low AC, low HP, and a big weapon they're not proficient in that keeps them from casting is not optimal, coup de grace opportunities or no. A bit more to the point, you said that every time you've ever seen a scythe, it was being used for munchkinry, but Coup De Grace are literally the only situation that would reasonably come up where you could honestly say a scythe was the best weapon for the job. Professional stick-swingers don't bother with it, because it's unoptimal, and the wizard here would probably still be better off with a greataxe because he's got a Str penalty. Of course, he'd be better off using a spell or a blasting Reserve feat, IMO, but I unlike you don't generally complain when a player wants to do something unoptimal because it's in character for them.

[TheIronGolem]

I am amazed that anyone outside of myself can evaluate my own experiences; kudos to you TheIronGolem for being a wizard...

I can evaluate statements you've made about your past experience, in light of other statements you've made that illustrate certain erroneous assumptions you hold.

But of course, you already knew that, and have chosen to pretend I've made claims that you know I haven't.

[AvatarVecna]

Overpowered? That full round action the wizard is spending on the CDG could be used to shut down the rest of the encounter. No one here, not one person on either side of this argument, has suggested that this combo is overpowered. (I haven't actually confirmed that. I'm going by memory from participation. So... correct me if I'm wrong lol.)

Not one person, hmm? I think there's proof to the contrary at this point, Doc.

[Erys]

I unlike you don't generally complain when a player wants to do something unoptimal because it's in character for them. .

We have no proof any of this is "in character".

I love in character, give me a backstory and the sky is the limit.

PS: 'Easier to kill helpless things' is not a backstory. At least not at my table.

[Ionbound]

I'm just gonna take a step back here and point out that we're getting dangerously close to 'mug full of Orcus' territory. Which ended really poorly last time anyways, so...Let's not do that again.

[Afgncaap5]

Apologies if this has been brought up already (I started skimming after page 2), but I noted a few of the arguments against the wizard carrying a scythe revolve around it being an impractical farming implement. And it's true, many scythes in D&D are farming implements... though I just glanced at the description of it in the PH, and it seems to address this. It says that the scythe "resembles the standard farm implement of the same name" but goes on to say that the one listed as weaponry has been "balanced and strengthened for war." So... the argument that it's a wholly impractical weapon since it's pretty much just a farm implement doesn't, at least in terms of the Player's Handbook, seem to carry much merit (unless this is what everyone meant by the discussion of "war scythe vs scythe" that popped up a few times). This is also in addition to Tracy Hickman's (or Howard Taylor's?) observation that many medieval weapons were made by peasants putting farm implements onto the end of long sticks.

Also, while it's true that there's a difference between war scythes and actual scythes, it's worth mentioning that a guy named Paulus Hector Mair apparently wrote a fencing manual that included a section on dueling with scythes (though I can't find much info on if it was actual scythes or war scythes; some say the former, but I'm having trouble locating the text.)

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/97neHuFfPLI/hqdefault.jpg



Having said all this... would the homebrew invention of a totally new and different weapon help? Something like...

Sacrificial Dagger
This surprisingly heavy, strangely curved and frightfully unwieldy dagger is used for ceremonial rites and public executions in arcane circles.

18 gp, 1d6 damage (S), 2d4 damage (M), x4 Critical, 10 lbs. due to incredibly dense metal in its hilt, deals slashing or piercing damage, no range increment, treated as a two-handed melee weapon for cool-looking overhead "plunging the weapon down at the under-protected enemy" method of combat perfected by cultists, mad scholars, and in-over-their-head medical practitioners who affected its design and prevented it from being balanced for one-handed combat.

[eggynack]

For me, unless there was a fantastic backstory presented beforehand, I would endure the same bitter taste if a player made the same wizard but used a great axe to coup de grace instead.

Both a scythe and great axe are vastly superior to coup de grace with than say, a dagger. Or even a long sword for that matter. Both are optimal, especially when you opt to side step needing to know how to use them proficiently and can still maximize their damage potential (read: crit).
Yes, a scythe is optimal for this purpose, but it's not optimal in the sense that celerity is optimal. It's optimal in the sense that, say, a screwdriver is optimal, in that it's an efficient tool for a job that you wouldn't really be expected to fail at. A person isn't breaking the system by using a screwdriver rather than a hammer to turn screws any more than they're breaking the game by choosing a scythe over a dagger. I don't know why you'd want or need a backstory here. Do you demand a backstory when players purchase some rope? Do you chastise them for using rope when the lighter bed sheets would do in a pinch? It seems weird to expect these kinds of lengthy efforts for a scythe and not for all the other situationally useful tools that adventurers frequently carry around with them.

[Zanos]

Yes, a scythe is optimal for this purpose, but it's not optimal in the sense that celerity is optimal. It's optimal in the sense that, say, a screwdriver is optimal, in that it's an efficient tool for a job that you wouldn't really be expected to fail at. A person isn't breaking the system by using a screwdriver rather than a hammer to turn screws any more than they're breaking the game by choosing a scythe over a dagger. I don't know why you'd want or need a backstory here. Do you demand a backstory when players purchase some rope? Do you chastise them for using rope when the lighter bed sheets would do in a pinch? It seems weird to expect these kinds of lengthy efforts for a scythe and not for all the other situationally useful tools that adventurers frequently carry around with them.
My crowbar was forged by my father, in the darkest abyss of the temple of elemental evil. With it, he pried open the door to the realm of the fiends, and slew the greatest of them.

Personally I use it to pull up nails.

[AvatarVecna]

We have no proof any of this is "in character".

I love in character, give me a backstory and the sky is the limit.

PS: 'Easier to kill helpless things' is not a backstory. At least not at my table.

I guess I just don't see why a wizard has to come up with some elaborate backstory to justify carrying a useful weapon. Also, with the OP not giving us any information on the character besides "he's a wizard", that's all we've got to go on.

A wizard isn't necessarily an expert on weapons, so they have to go off cultural knowledge. For comparison, I know basically nothing about guns except what I've seen in movies and videos games (which tend not to get too technical beyond "point and shoot"). I have never held a Desert Eagle in my life, I couldn't pick it out of a line-up, and I couldn't tell you how it compares to other pistols in any particular way...but if you asked me what my pistol of choice would be, I'd probably say Desert Eagle, because that gun has a positive reputation in media. Similarly, if you asked me what weapon I'd use for dispatching fallen foes, I'd probably go with either a scythe or a big axe; once again, I have no experience using either one, before this thread I didn't even know there was a difference between a farming and military scythe, and I'm not even really sure how large it is...but the concept of the Grim Reaper, or the Executioner's axe, is so pervasive in media that I know, even without knowing any real facts about either weapon, that they would be preferable for executing opponents that can't dodge away. And that's in our real world, where the 'skeleton wielding a scythe' is just a metaphor for death rather than the actual sentient personification of Death present in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerull) that D&D has.

So as a wizard, if I have a desire to wander into melee and execute the foes I've rendered helpless via magic, I wanna make sure I'm not going to waste too much time hacking away at them--if for no other reason than I don't wish to look foolish for being unable to finish off a literally helpless, immobile foe. So, I can choose to take my sturdy walking stick and use it like a baseball bat, and send their brain knocking around in their head, but that might just give them a concussion, and I don't exactly know where the weak parts of the skull are. Alternatively, I could stab them with my dagger, but I'm also aware that particularly inexperienced or wimpy knife-wielders may have to stab their foe several times even when helpless to ensure death. Alternatively, I could purchase a military scythe; sure, I don't know how to use it, so I won't use it for real hand-to-hand combat, but the scythe's reputation as a literal instrument of death is solid enough that I would trust in it. If I've immobilized a foe and I'm close enough to attack them in melee, my weapon-dumb wizard can still feel confident that a scythe will basically guarantee that the helpless foe dies, wasting minimal time. Not to mention looking hella badass, which is always a plus.

From there, I need to consider if the advantage in such situations (quickly dispatching foes under relatively rare battlefield circumstances) is worth the downsides of having it the rest of the time (it's bulky and relatively heavy, and I always need more pack space for books). Ultimately, if I'm the kind of wizard that wants to Coup De Grace people in melee, I'm either a dedicated Gish and I'm picking a real weapon, or I'm an opportunistic wizard who wants the ability to take advantage of CDG opportunities...and in the case of the latter, I would probably go with the scythe over the dagger or the quarterstaff. I'd almost certainly never use it for actually fighting, but then I'd almost never be actually fighting.

And there's other potential benefits to having a scythe in the party. Besides the example utility uses Zaydos mentioned, it's a fact of life that sundering/diarming/weapon theft happens sometimes. If Vaarsuvius had been the kind of wizard that desired to occasionally wander into melee and decapitate immobilized foes, Roy wouldn't have had to fail to buy anything at the Polearm Emporium, he could've just borrowed the two-handed martial weapon V was carrying around for CDG purposes, which would've been way better than continuing to use a greatclub. How often does sundering/disarming/weapon theft come up? Kinda depends on what the DM is like. But if the DM isn't pulling their punches against the PCs, it can happen frequently enough to make backup weapons almost a requirement.

Is any of that "backstory"? No, but it's still "in-character". It's the character making an in-character decision based on in-character knowledge and in-character motivations. It's not metagaming, and it's not optimal, it's the character wishing to do a thing they're not very good at, and taking steps to make sure they suck less at it. I don't see why the wizard has to jump through hoops to be allowed to offset a dumb decision (perform Coup De Grace regularly) with a smart decision (...with a badass scythe, just in case it turns out I suck at killing people with weapons).

[AvatarVecna]

My crowbar was forged by my father, in the darkest abyss of the temple of elemental evil. With it, he pried open the door to the realm of the fiends, and slew the greatest of them.

Personally I use it to pull up nails.

Best backstory ever! :smallbiggrin:

[grarrrg]

My crowbar was forged by my father, in the darkest abyss of the temple of elemental evil. With it, he pried open the door to the realm of the fiends, and slew the greatest of them.

Personally I use it to pull up nails.

But are they EVIL nails!?

[Erys]

I don't think scythes come up as frequent in games as, say, rope or sheets... But more to the point, when one of my players has motivation to slaughter those who are helpless as efficient as possible- yes, I do like to know why.

Even "if for no other reason than I don't wish to look foolish for being unable to finish off a literally helpless, immobile foe". (-AvatarVecna) Which is a great answer, btw.

If you don't care to ask, that is fine. I don't think this is a case where either party can be wrong. Especially when neither of us have advocated barring a player from doing it, I simply said it would leave a bitter taste in my mouth if the only reason for such motivation was 'because I can'.

[eggynack]

I don't think scythes come up as frequent in games as, say, rope or sheets.
Doesn't really make the scythe any less a tool that lacks a need for in-character justification though. You have it because it's useful. Any more is nice, but very unnecessary.


But more to the point, when one of my players has motivation to slaughter those who are helpless as efficient as possible- yes, I do like to know why.
It's not really a ruthlessness thing. It's just that foes made helpless by wizardly magic have a bad habit of becoming very much not helpless soon afterwards. If you cast sleep on someone, all it takes is some arbitrary ally using a standard action and they're right back in the game. With that in mind, the ability to take someone from sleeping to dead can be pretty useful. Also, in that one on one scenario I cited earlier, it strikes me that tying up the foe would be risky, because it might wake them up, so you're really only keeping them out of the way for a few minutes, after which time they might kill you. Less slaughter, more pragmatism.


I simply said it would leave a bitter taste in my mouth if the only reason for such motivation was 'because I can'.
So, with the above in mind, it strikes me as self evident that the character has other reasons to use a scythe beyond the simple ability to do so. A scythe is good for a lot more than arbitrarily murdering sleeping folk in cold blood. It's also good for murdering imminently dangerous sleeping foes in the moment.

Also, I must point out, if this character actually isn't using this scythe for combat, and is instead pursuing some arbitrary murder motive, isn't that entirely choosing flavor over power? The character is getting approximately no meaningful benefit from this in the arbitrary murder scenario. Because, if they really want to assassinate a naturally sleeping target, then normal spells are probably better for the job. Scythes are nice cause they don't take spells, but you've presumably planned this whole assassination out, so you're probably not as drained on spells as you'd be in standard combats. So, even if I'm wrong in some fashion, it just goes to demonstrate a completely different flaw in the OP's claims. Either a scythe is effective at its job, and is being used in that role, in which case it'd make sense for the character to use it, or either the scythe sucks at its job, or isn't being used for that job, in which case this can't possibly be considered a power grab.

[oxybe]

I think a big thing I haven't seen mentioned is that the game rules are basically the reality of the game world. The lore and mechanics should inform each other and it's creating lore without consulting the mechanics that causes a disconnect, as well as creating mechanics whole-hog that conflict with lore.

They're not seperate: You take 1d6 per 10ft of distance you've fallen (up to 20d6), and falling objects deal 1d6 additional damage per 200lbs. that's how Dungeonlandia deals with falling.

This is a defined, repeatable and observable fact in-game.

Jumping off a cliff knowing that you can survive that 20d6 is not metagaming... it's an action done while being fully aware of how the world works. Would your character do so? Well outside of being damaged (which, again, it's observable that damage does not affect your ability to do anything until it reaches 0) if you need to reach the bottom of that cliff asap... uh. yeah.

Take your jump. It's not unrealistic.

I take actions IRL because I know how my real world mechanics will interact with my actions.

By that regard a wizard taking a scythe (a martial weapon with known, observable and repeatable properties) to help him dispatch enemies he's forced into unconsciousness via coup de grace (which, again: it has known, observable and repeatable in-game effects) isn't dumb or unrealistic. If he's got reason to expect to have to finish off enemies he's disabled, why would he not take a weapon that it has been observed to be good at that task?

If "realism" was actually a problem, it wouldn't begin at "Scythe" it would begin at "One of my players, a wizard,...". Specifically the "a wizard" part.

wizards and spellcasting, and the mechanics around them, are just as much part of the gameworld's reality as how scythes are combat weapons and how it interacts with unconciousness and coup de grace rules.

So either you change scythes so they're no longer actually good at coup de grace-ing enemies, thus making the mechanics fit your lore, or you accept that scythes are actually good at that task and the wizard is picking the right tool for the job, which means the mechanics and lore are properly aligned.

really those are your options.

[Zanos]

But are they EVIL nails!?
You're looking for a different guy that runs the evil hardware store. I forget his name.



They're not seperate: You take 1d6 per 10ft of distance you've fallen (up to 20d6), and falling objects deal 1d6 additional damage per 200lbs. that's how Dungeonlandia deals with falling.

This is a defined, repeatable and observable fact in-game.

Jumping off a cliff knowing that you can survive that 20d6 is not metagaming... it's an action done while being fully aware of how the world works. Would your character do so? Well outside of being damaged (which, again, it's observable that damage does not affect your ability to do anything until it reaches 0) if you need to reach the bottom of that cliff asap... uh. yeah.

Take your jump. It's not unrealistic.
Yeah, I've seen people complain about knowing a fall won't kill you a couple of times. I think people forget that if your character can survive a 20d6 fall, they aren't really a normal human anymore.

[oxybe]

You're looking for a different guy that runs the evil hardware store. I forget his name.


Yeah, I've seen people complain about knowing a fall won't kill you a couple of times. I think people forget that if your character can survive a 20d6 fall, they aren't really a normal human anymore.

I would say once you start being able to call forth lighting using a glass rod and a squirrel pelt your marriage with normalcy has long deteriorated and is nothing more then a cheap facade you're barely holding on to for the sake of your own delusion as you court illicit relations with both the superhuman and supernatural.

When you're falling off cliffs and shrugging it off, throwing lighting bolts and telling physics to be darned to heck by teleporting around and treating several towns as basically separate districts with large natural expanses you can ignore through a few words, you are not a normal person.

[weckar]

Maybe I'm not being clear, though I've mentioned proficiency each time, but I'm not trying to argue that the dagger is objectively better. My point is more that I don't think a wizard would opt to use a scythe to dispatch enemies simply because he isn't proficient with one. He doesn't know how to use it.Says who? I'm sorry, but why wouldn't a wizard take a weapon proficiency feat if they have a spare feat? I mean, it is far from optimal - but I've had too much fun with my greataxe wizard not to recommend it!

[Kantolin]

But more to the point, when one of my players has motivation to slaughter those who are helpless as efficient as possible- yes, I do like to know why.

Would, 'I did it once with a knife, the ettin didn't die, and the party fighter retorted, 'They're freaking asleep, I don't think even you could miss, use my scythe' be sufficient?

How about if 'I did it once with a knife, the ettin didn't die, so now I use a bigger weapon to ensure the ettin dies'?

Or even just that they prepared sleep, realized they wouldn't be able to finish off a sleeping opponent too well with a knife, and went to find some weapon that's good for killing sleeping opponents since they have nothing else they're doing with their weapon slot anyway?

I am increasingly confused with 'The wizard didn't realize a knife doesn't hit as hard as a scythe, so it doesn't make sense to use the scythe'. Does that apply to everything? Is the wizard called out for using fireball over burning hands, or using fireball over alchemist fire? Or, well, using a saw to cut down a tree because it's a better tool than using a sword?

If the problem really is 'but that can be used to kill people'... well, so can a lot of things. I can actually accept a character (Wizard or not) deciding they simply didn't want to coup de grace people at all.

...Although again, it feels like these people would then be cited as a munchkin if they used masterwork manacles instead of regular manacles since the masterwork ones are better? Or possibly than using rope because the masterwork manacles are better, and wizards don't carry manacles?

[Alphabetmaster]

Sorry for being late. I didn't leave, I went to sleep. The first post was at around midnight for me.
I haven't read all the posts - just up to all of page 4 - but I should say something before I forget.

You wanted a backstory? Fine. It boils down to:
My village was plagued by a deadly and virulent disease. It killed lots of them, including my loved ones. I vowed that when I grew up, I would never allow people to die helplessly again. I would bring life, and light into their world.

This is minus most of the flowery text that makes this quite a nice Backstory, and the overarching goal.

Stats?
Str 8 Dex 10 Con 14 Int 16 Wis 12 Cha 12

I initially suggested him to play a Cleric, but he wanted to play a Wizard. I respected that, and his fluff reasons, I felt, were adequate.

[Mordaedil]

This is the weirdest "is this in character" argument thread I've had the pleasure to read. Both sides make good points, but I feel I have to wage in favor of the ones saying "he should wield the scythe if he feels like it".

The reason is simple, the rules support him wielding it and it honestly is the least problematic situation I've read. I kinda get why you made this thread, having other points of views can be helpful in making the decision, but frankly in order to support your decision we've just not got enough information. I can imagine situations where I'd be "yeah, you're right, he shouldn't be using a scythe" as well as "what, no, he should use a scythe, but you can make him suffer the normal penalties and extra social pressure from wielding it". Please, tell us more about this wizard, his background, tel us how he acted previously and what he used before he decided to pick up a scythe as well as what lead him to pick up the scythe.

All of this is pertient information for people to agree with you. You provided this while I was writing my post, wow.

He's going to really struggle to wield that scythe with an 8 strength.

From my point of view, letting the character use a scythe isn't any more troubling than letting him use a dagger or a spear. You could however argue that because it's a longsword attached to the end of a quarterstaff, that because of the lack of proficiencies he takes double proficiency penalty, as it's a more advanced weapon than a longsword, which he also lacks proficiencies in. Present your argument that a spear is basically a quarterstaff with a dagger on point and he lacks proficiency with that as well, despite having proficiencies with both daggers and quarterstaffs.

Otherwise, I think you are kind of just kind of being a stuck-in-the-mud DM. Just imagine if you had a campaign with a wizard who wanted to dress up as a rogue (without using restricting leather armor).

[Sliver]

A) That is fairly plain as far as backstories go. I'm sure that the "flowery text" made it a great story, and there a few things to work with as far as plot hooks go, but it doesn't scream "RP heavy", a claim that I doubt regarding your group since you oppose the scythe on the basis of "cheesy and lame", "pointless" (was that the word you used?) and basically "if there other things that he can use to maybe get the job done, why can't I ban this one?"

B) A DM shouldn't ban something because it's not optimal or that he doesn't see the character with it. He isn't playing that character, the player is. The DM has lots of NPCs that he can make to his liking, the player has to deal with one (at a time), usually.

C) If his reasoning "leaves a bad taste in your mouth", deal with it, together. Explain to him why you don't feel like it's "justified" and try to come to an explanation for why it actually is "justified", or an alternative that you are both satisfied with. Just because he said "it does good crit on CdG" instead of "I WANT TO LOOK AWESOME WHILE REAPING THE SOULS OF MY FALLEN FOES" doesn't mean that they are inherently different, but maybe the player simply isn't thinking in these terms when asked "why?"

D) PCs are almost always unique compared to the NPCs that fill up the world. They pick up the mantle of heroes or villains and shake up the world and change the course of history. They do not come to watch a story unfold, they come to be what the story is about. If using the scythe is unortodox in your setting, then the hero that wields a scythe yet is not themed around Death is a perfect trend setter. The PCs don't have to fit what has already been set in your setting. Let them become part of the backstory. If you are going to reuse the setting, but progress it to some point in the future, it would bring up the awesome factor by a lot if your players can see the trends that they, or other players, have set, actually matter and create new fashions.

[Alphabetmaster]

A) That is fairly plain as far as backstories go. I'm sure that the "flowery text" made it a great story, and there a few things to work with as far as plot hooks go, but it doesn't scream "RP heavy", a claim that I doubt regarding your group since you oppose the scythe on the basis of "cheesy and lame", "pointless" (was that the word you used?) and basically "if there other things that he can use to maybe get the job done, why can't I ban this one?"
The backstory is about 2 typed up A4 sheets long. I cut it down dramatically for sake of convenience. I didn't put in the fact that's he's scared of the dark, or hates religion in general, for example.

Sorry, my brain isn't working this morning. What's the point you're making?

[Sliver]

The backstory is about 2 typed up A4 sheets long. I cut it down dramatically for sake of convenience.
Sorry, my brain isn't working this morning. What's the point you're making?

My point was that your responses before, and this one did not help, did not give an impression of an "RP heavy" group. If you are "RP heavy" and the player that you are defending for his ability to RP are really RP heavy, then it should not be hard for you to talk between yourselves and have him find a satisfactory explanation for why a scythe actually is in character, or for you to agree that it's not.

But being a role-player means putting yourself into someone else's shoes and playing someone who isn't you. That means being open to other opinions, which you explicitly refused to do. By your own admission, you would not change your opinion regarding the scythe. Your own arguments were all mechanics based, besides "there are other options, so why this?"

And did you miss the rest of the post too? Or was my first comment about your own dismissal of flowery text to imply that I don't see much in that backstory so offensive that you had to single that part out? Or was nothing else worth responding to?

[Earthwalker]

Personally I would not change a thing in this situation if I were GM and just let the wizard use the Scythe.

I would like to point out some alternatives to banning the wizard having a scythe tho. Before the first CDG comes up in game (if possible) suggest you want to use one of the following house rules.

1) You can only perform an CDG with a weapon you are proficient in using.
or
2) If you perform a CGD with a weapon you are not proficient in using you take twice as long (two full rounds !!)
or
3) If you perform a CDG with a weapon you are not proficient in you need to make a to-hit roll including penalties
or
4) Change the Crit multiplier for Scythes to x2

[Sliver]

Personally I would not change a thing in this situation if I were GM and just let the wizard use the Scythe.

I would like to point out some alternatives to banning the wizard having a scythe tho. Before the first CDG comes up in game (if possible) suggest you want to use one of the following house rules.

1) You can only perform an CDG with a weapon you are proficient in using.
or
2) If you perform a CGD with a weapon you are not proficient in using you take twice as long (two full rounds !!)
or
3) If you perform a CDG with a weapon you are not proficient in you need to make a to-hit roll including penalties
or
4) Change the Crit multiplier for Scythes to x2

If a house-rule makes an option so bad that it's pointless to pick, it's basically a soft-ban. "I'll say that I'll allow it, but I'll make you sorry for the choices you made". The scythe isn't viable for the wizard at all with the 1 ruling, 4 makes it such an inferior choice that almost anything else will be picked, and even 2 or 3 are rather harsh, since two rounds for a single opponent are hard to come by for the wizard, and rolling to-hit is what he wants to avoid, since he already has low BAB and the no proficiency penalty.

And it wasn't really why the OP didn't like the scythe...

[weckar]

Can someone please point me to the post in this thread where it was confirmed this specific wizard is not proficient? :smallconfused:

[Mordaedil]

We assume because we reckon if the wizard had taken a prof feat, this discussion would have come up earlier.

[weckar]

Frankly this DM seems too biased to bring it up on their own accord. But point taken regardless.
I mean, if one were a wizard with the Fighter Feats ACF weapon proficiencies are totally a viable option.

(Although, considering every weapon is a separate feat as is every level of armor, ever noticed the sheer amount of virtual bonus feats a Fighter gets over a Wizard? It's kind of ridiculous. And most of them never get used.)

[Mordaedil]

I really prefer the NWN implementation of the feat, where all martial weapons are included in the feat, same for exotic weapons.

Firearms should have just been it's own category and it'd all be fine.

[Vaz]

The Wieldskill spell takes care of any Proficiency needs. No need to go all ham and "waste" a perfectly good permanent feat slot when they can "cast themselves good". If Wizards casting magic to get good is "not RP", well, I don't really know how to proceed.

The Scythe isn't the problem. Ask the player to come up with a better backstory to it. Is it a symbol of his humble beginnings, to remind himself of where he could otherwise be, and what he's fighting for? His enslaved mother back in the fields of the Baron, so he does what he can to free her/save money to buy her and the rest of the slaves free (assuming he's on the neutral/good side of the axis more than the chaotic evil) - or he has done something like that etc. Is it large enough a staff that he can use as a walking aid? There doesn't have to be a mechanical bonus to it,

For the arbitrary reason you're intent on banning this party member from having this 10lb weapon (when a Wizards carrying capacity is otherwise limited to 26lb as a Strength 8 creature, lest he slows the party down), can you not settle down with him and say, "listen mate, this idea you've got, I want to support you, but you're going about it the wrong way".

There could well be valid reasons as to why a Martial Warscythe is considered bad juju - maybe Necromancers and Blighters and other nasty members of society are typically associated with carrying scythes, and it hurts the party diplomatically that rather than gaining accomodation, they're thrown out, food and drink costs more than what it should. Rewards for completing jobs aren't what they could be etc, simply because the party is associating with a wrong 'un.

For such an RP heavy group, you don't seem to do much talking to one another.

[Dr.Samurai]

Not one person, hmm? I think there's proof to the contrary at this point, Doc.
Well... I think Erys is arguing more that a choice is being made for a mechanical reason (CDG), not necessarily that it is an overpowered action.

I just want to reiterate though, that I, and Erys I believe (don't let me put words in your mouth), both concede that banning the scythe is not an option. We're just explaining why this particular issue leaves a bad taste in our mouths. Some of the more easily traumatized posters in this thread seem to be suggesting that we would ban the scythe or are arguing from houserules or some such nonsense to justify not allowing scythes. Chillax all. No banning, just sharing our particular tastes.

I mean, there's a bunch of things that other players might play or do in the game that I don't particularly care for. Maybe I'm a snob for committing these thought crimes, I don't know. Truthfully, I'm skeptical that others aren't the same way.

[Mordaedil]

Well... I think Erys is arguing more that a choice is being made for a mechanical reason (CDG), not necessarily that it is an overpowered action.

I just want to reiterate though, that I, and Erys I believe (don't let me put words in your mouth), both concede that banning the scythe is not an option. We're just explaining why this particular issue leaves a bad taste in our mouths. Some of the more easily traumatized posters in this thread seem to be suggesting that we would ban the scythe or are arguing from houserules or some such nonsense to justify not allowing scythes. Chillax all. No banning, just sharing our particular tastes.

I mean, there's a bunch of things that other players might play or do in the game that I don't particularly care for. Maybe I'm a snob for committing these thought crimes, I don't know. Truthfully, I'm skeptical that others aren't the same way.
I get where you come from, though I think you'd agree we are still kind of too much in the dark about the circumstances to call it one way or the other, no? As easily as we can say "this is an unfitting choice" we can argue "it's a solid choice".

[Braininthejar2]

I'd make the scythe a running gag, with it getting stuck in narrow passages, and bartenders complaining about it. :smallamused:

[Incorrect]

Let him, he is only nerfing himself. That, and a scythe really is a high RP, low OP option.

If you find it hard to justify his reasons for it ingame, just have an NPC ask him about it.


nitpick: can he even carry it?..

[weckar]

Carry it? Are scythes that heavy or is this a variant on the lethal housecat conundrum?

[Earthwalker]

If a house-rule makes an option so bad that it's pointless to pick, it's basically a soft-ban. "I'll say that I'll allow it, but I'll make you sorry for the choices you made". The scythe isn't viable for the wizard at all with the 1 ruling, 4 makes it such an inferior choice that almost anything else will be picked, and even 2 or 3 are rather harsh, since two rounds for a single opponent are hard to come by for the wizard, and rolling to-hit is what he wants to avoid, since he already has low BAB and the no proficiency penalty.

And it wasn't really why the OP didn't like the scythe...

I got the impression from the OP that the thing annoying him was the player doing this purely for the mechanical effect (like I said in my post if it was me I aren't sure I could be bothered to care)

The general idea behind the house rules is to close an oddity where you don't have to be proficient with a weapon to CDG. If the Wizard really wants the Scythe for his theme I am sure he will pay the cost to be proficient. (Trait, Feat or Spell)

[killem2]

That would depend on the characters other equipment. If they have the space for the 10lbs the scythe weighs without being burdened, I see no reason to not use one. That said, an 8 str character has a preciously small budget for equipment weight at low levels, so a pick would probably make more sense for them in many cases.

No it doesn't matter if he is burdened. If he wants to make the decision to walk 5ft per round because he is carrying too much that is his choice.

[Kish]

His backstory makes it seem ridiculous to me, and what he intends to build almost the opposite of a Grim Reaper Wannabe.

I don't know, but scythes have always struck me as fairly ridiculous. By no means would every wizard carry a farming implement around to coup-de-grace fallen foes; scythes are big and bulky and not very wizardly. I asked him if he would rather use a dagger or a sword of some kind, but he refused saying that wizards are generally smarter than everyone, so he would know that they could CDG better than a knife. Scythes are farm implements that can be weaponized, but they are still farm implements.
Then ban scythes as weapons entirely, as other people said. Don't specifically pick on one character--"yes, it's still a martial weapon, but not for you."

We're a RP heavy, low OP table. A skinny, feeble, bookish wizard may well decide the thing he needs the most on his travels is a large and heavy harvest tool. But it's cheesy, lame, idiotic in every way - and no argument you can conjure up will change that.

..."I will only accept one answer to the thread question" means you really shouldn't have started the thread--also as other people said.

It is definitely metagaming for a wizard to carry one (barring the rare death-obsessed necromancer). That is because it is (for most wizards) impossible to explain in character why they're carrying it, and that is because the "killing sleeping people" rule is based on mechanics rather than reality. In real life, it's easier to kill a sleeping person with a knife than with a big honking scythe. Go ahead, google up statistics on knife murders and on scythe murders. Which do you think happens more often?
In real life, muttering nonsense syllables and holding bat dung never produces fiery explosions. Ban spellcasters. Verisimilitude is nothing, realism uber alles.

Your concept of "metagaming" seems to be "being aware of simple, easy things to observe about the world the character is in which happen to not match the real world." In other words, your concept of not-metagaming is "playing the character as extremely stupid." Again--you have the right to ban scythes as a weapon, or declare that they only get an x2 crit so that no one will want them, but you shouldn't expect forum approval for instead saying that yes, a scythe is an ideal weapon for a coup de grace in your game, no, you have no reason why the character wouldn't know that, but it says awful things about the player if the character acts like it's the case anyway.

[Mordaedil]

It's heavy, but not *that* heavy.

[Vaz]

No it doesn't matter if he is burdened. If he wants to make the decision to walk 5ft per round because he is carrying too much that is his choice.

Until the party sunders it/throws it into a bag of holding and cuts the bag.

[Darth_Versity]

Just thought I'd weigh in here, even though my post will probably get lost in the maelstrom that is this thread.

Why not fix both problems at the same time?

If the player wants the best way to take out helpless enemies and and you don't want 'a wizard with a farm implement' then simply making all weapons do x4 on a CDG fixes both problems. He can now use a more conventional weapon and you don't have to break your immersion in the world.

In honesty I can understand both points of view. Using a scythe just because of its game statistics rather than for character reasons is slightly metagamey (slightly), but if I stab a dagger through a helpless foes throat he should be dead, not taking a max of 6 damage (even with a strength of 8).

Increasing the critical multiplier on helpless foes makes all weapons good for dispatching downed foes. Just don't forget to use it against your players if the situation is appropriate.

[Shackel]

Today I learned: a character who by being that class must have high Int having a faint knowledge of the mechanics of weapons and thus picking out the best one for their personal use is their player being a munchkin.

However, the Int <13 martial having a faint knowledge of weapons and picking out the best weapon for their personal use of damage, crit mod, crit range, material, and damage type, is completely acceptable and is not being a munchkin. Nor is the Int <13 having the quintessential silver/cold iron/bludgeoning/slashing/ranged weapon pack. Nor is, apparently, utilizing any other part of the character creation process that is assumed by the game.

Of course, I speak this very optimistically and yet with some doubt, because from the sheer ferocity some are having talking about how a wizard using a scythe is apparently metagaming, it worries me greatly on what they think of literally every other aspect of character building. A wizard selecting good spells for flavor and strategy? Dirty munchkin. Fighter picking feats that actually apply to their build? Optimizer! Barbarian selecting a greatsword or a greataxe? Please, a longsword would kill anyone just as easily.

It's bordering on the absurd.

[Inevitability]

https://media.tenor.co/images/54451401d52c0dd2fe9ee5752857d53c/raw

I'm surprised we made it to page 7 without anyone posting this gif.

[Dr.Samurai]

Says who? I'm sorry, but why wouldn't a wizard take a weapon proficiency feat if they have a spare feat?
Says who indeed, because I never said anything of this sort. At least you prefaced this with an apology.



I get where you come from, though I think you'd agree we are still kind of too much in the dark about the circumstances to call it one way or the other, no? As easily as we can say "this is an unfitting choice" we can argue "it's a solid choice".
Right. I think for me, the idea that players would be thinking ahead to assassinating people and monsters in their sleep, and so would choose to bring along a scythe to maximize the chance for death in those instances, is just too much for me. I just don't see the scythe as a "tool" in the way most everyone here is describing it. I don't see "kill them in their sleep" as being such a common occurrence to make this choice an obvious one.

If included in his backstory is that he grabbed the nearest weapon at hand to defend himself during the massacre of his village, and it was a scythe. Or his parent saved his life at the cost of their own by fighting someone off with a scythe. Or if during that massacre he saw the reaper itself, or whatever. If those elements were involved somehow, ok. But the narrative that everyone is trying to convince me of, that wizards would have a working knowledge of coup de grace's and scythes and would think to bring one along because somewhere along the way they'll happen across sleeping dragons and warriors that are tough enough to swim through lava without dying... I'm just not buying it. That's a style of playing/DMing I think. And it's fine if that's your preference, and on those grounds you object to me or someone else having our own objection to this particular wizard grabbing a scythe just to CDG. But I certainly think many of you are overstating your case. Such as...

No it doesn't matter if he is burdened. If he wants to make the decision to walk 5ft per round because he is carrying too much that is his choice.
This to me is absurd. Yes, you are of course correct that he could actually carry that gear and walk around at 1 square per round. Legally, you can make that argument. But to make the leap that players and DMs should simply accept one character slowing the group down to that snail's pace, for whatever reason, doesn't matter is the overstatement I think. It's as if you are trying to find a RAW way to tell the OP that her opinion on this is wrong.


Today I learned: a character who by being that class must have high Int having a faint knowledge of the mechanics of weapons and thus picking out the best one for their personal use is their player being a munchkin.

However, the Int <13 martial having a faint knowledge of weapons and picking out the best weapon for their personal use of damage, crit mod, crit range, material, and damage type, is completely acceptable and is not being a munchkin. Nor is the Int <13 having the quintessential silver/cold iron/bludgeoning/slashing/ranged weapon pack. Nor is, apparently, utilizing any other part of the character creation process that is assumed by the game.
As the thread continues we can start to see the positions people are arguing from. I disagree that wizards and fighters have the same level of familiarity with weapons. And I disagree that just because any character has a 16 intelligence we can just start assuming that he knows whatever we decide is "common knowledge". My issue is that these are all arbitrary assumptions you guys are making, but then you are arguing them as if they apply across the board to all games.

Of course, I speak this very optimistically and yet with some doubt, because from the sheer ferocity some are having talking about how a wizard using a scythe is apparently metagaming, it worries me greatly on what they think of literally every other aspect of character building. A wizard selecting good spells for flavor and strategy? Dirty munchkin. Fighter picking feats that actually apply to their build? Optimizer! Barbarian selecting a greatsword or a greataxe? Please, a longsword would kill anyone just as easily.

It's bordering on the absurd.
No, not bordering. Your misrepresentation *is* absurd.

[Hamste]

You wanted a backstory? Fine. It boils down to:
My village was plagued by a deadly and virulent disease. It killed lots of them, including my loved ones. I vowed that when I grew up, I would never allow people to die helplessly again. I would bring life, and light into their world.


So he is wielding a scythe either because his family had one, he was originally a farmer or as a sort of memory of his roots? What is more he uses it to coup de grace people in a single strike to avoid a long drawn out death full of pain after his family died what was probably an extremely long and painful death from disease (have to go off possible motivations given a cut down backstory). If he went with a dagger then a giant or some other giant beast may survive and suffer a lot more pain than needed.

It seems to make perfect sense for a wizard with this background to use a farm implement (possibly modified to actually be a weapon). Not only did someone in his family probably own one if he is from a farming village but he has an actual reason why he would want to avoid slitting someone's throat and them surviving like is possible with a dagger (and it isn't meta gaming to realize a larger creature may resist a small weapon like a dagger).

The die helplessly thing and coup de grace might be hypocritical to this but it is OK for a character to be a hypocrite.

[Strigon]

In honesty I can understand both points of view. Using a scythe just because of its game statistics rather than for character reasons is slightly metagamey (slightly), but if I stab a dagger through a helpless foes throat he should be dead, not taking a max of 6 damage (even with a strength of 8).


Neither of those is true. It's not metagamey at all; if using a weapon for its damage rather than personal significance is metagamey, then me buying a car in real life because it's fast, cheap, and reliable rather than because it has a nice paint job is metagamey.
Next, stabbing a helpless ordinary human through the throat should kill them. But then ordinary humans can't bend/break steel bars, jump 30 ft straight up, or completely ignore most poisons. Why draw the line at resilience to daggers, rather than any of the other things?

Finally, I'd like to point out how ludicrous this whole scenario is. A character shouldn't have to justify anything they choose to buy, least of all a weapon that's easily available.
Imagine if you were buying bagels, and a voice boomed from the heavens demanding that you can't buy bagels because it ruins his idea of who you are. It then explained that there was no rational reason you should buy bagels, because breakfast cereals are cheaper and healthier. The voice goes on to say that you will never be able to purchase a bagel, because it makes no sense to him.
That's what you're doing here.

[Shackel]

As the thread continues we can start to see the positions people are arguing from. I disagree that wizards and fighters have the same level of familiarity with weapons. And I disagree that just because any character has a 16 intelligence we can just start assuming that he knows whatever we decide is "common knowledge". My issue is that these are all arbitrary assumptions you guys are making, but then you are arguing them as if they apply across the board to all games.

No, not bordering. Your misrepresentation *is* absurd.

Your disagreement would be correct. That's called "weapon proficiency." Nothing more, nothing less. The -4 penalty is all there is, and anything else is this increasingly ridiculous attempt at trying to define even further on exactly what certain classes are "allowed" to have before they become munchkins without at least admitting to themselves that what they speak of is nothing more than houserule and rather silly ones at that.

You are the one with arbitrary assumptions: that the game's limitations and expectations on a class using a mundane weapon goes any further than weapon proficiency.

[Sandsarecool]

This... is STILL going?

[Whoops. Can't see this yet.]
Atleast give us a better argument; Nobody here seems pleased with your current ones.

[Necroticplague]

So he is wielding a scythe either because his family had one, he was originally a farmer or as a sort of memory of his roots? What is more he uses it to coup de grace people in a single strike to avoid a long drawn out death full of pain after his family died what was probably an extremely long and painful death from disease (have to go off possible motivations given a cut down backstory). If he went with a dagger then a giant or some other giant beast may survive and suffer a lot more pain than needed.

It seems to make perfect sense for a wizard with this background to use a farm implement (possibly modified to actually be a weapon). Not only did someone in his family probably own one if he is from a farming village but he has an actual reason why he would want to avoid slitting someone's throat and them surviving like is possible with a dagger (and it isn't meta gaming to realize a larger creature may resist a small weapon like a dagger).

The die helplessly thing and coup de grace might be hypocritical to this but it is OK for a character to be a hypocrite.

Yeah, in context of the backstory, having something for effecient CdG makes sense. "I don't want others to have to suffer the long,drawn out deaths I've seen, and the horrors that come with that. Thus, I carry a tool useful for minimizing the amount length and pain of such."

[Dr.Samurai]

Your disagreement would be correct. That's called "weapon proficiency."
I was referring actually to the term you were using "faint knowledge". You are positing that wizards and fighters have the same level of knowledge about weapons. I disagree.

Nothing more, nothing less.
There is nothing in the books that spells out how much about the game world any given character knows. That is something that has to be stated and described. If you want your wizard to know how scythes work, and be familiar enough with CDGs and assassinations to actually think about it and plan ahead for it, then write your character that way. But this isn't a given.

You're telling me that all wizards would know to carry a scythe to kill people in their sleep. And I'm saying no, I don't agree that's the case. And the only reason this particular point matters is to determine the player's reasoning in the OP. You have to make the case that this is just automatic common knowledge in the world to justify saying "I'm carrying a scythe around to better kill helpless people".

The -4 penalty is all there is, and anything else...
Has to be declared. Again, it doesn't say anywhere what wizards know about weapons and adventuring. Nowhere. You have to determine for your own wizard what he might know about the world and weapons. Maybe he is intimately familiar with scythes but just doesn't know how to wield one in combat. Maybe he's heard stories from his uncle about adventuring and in them his uncle has described sneaking up on sleeping goblins and orcs and giants, oh my.

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe your wizard doesn't know jack **** about scythes or killing people in their sleep and the thought has never crossed his mind. That's the point of asking for an explanation.

[CharonsHelper]

Imagine if you were buying bagels, and a voice boomed from the heavens demanding that you can't buy bagels because it ruins his idea of who you are. It then explained that there was no rational reason you should buy bagels, because breakfast cereals are cheaper and healthier. The voice goes on to say that you will never be able to purchase a bagel, because it makes no sense to him.
That's what you're doing here.

Something like that might help me lose those last 5lbs.

Maybe it could be the next diet craze. The "Judgmental Voice From the Sky Diet".

"Ice cream make no sense for someone who has spent time and money on martial arts training to be an effective combatant. Ice cream is against this character concept. This purchase shall not pass!"

[Alphabetmaster]

Can someone please point me to the post in this thread where it was confirmed this specific wizard is not proficient? :smallconfused:

The Wizard is Question is not proficient with Scythes. Done.

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe your wizard doesn't know jack **** about scythes or killing people in their sleep and the thought has never crossed his mind. That's the point of asking for an explanation.
The Character is Question comes from a purely nomadic-style village. Its inhabitants survive almost purely on animal husbandry.

He'd never have seen a scythe in his life, let alone heard it was good for killing things that were helpless. Besides, his head would have been in his books too much to pay any real attention.

[Erys]

Thank you Dr Samuria, we at least seem to see eye to eye here.

Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, won't.



You wanted a backstory? Fine. It boils down to:
My village was plagued by a deadly and virulent disease. It killed lots of them, including my loved ones. I vowed that when I grew up, I would never allow people to die helplessly again. I would bring life, and light into their world.

I am out of this thread; but, since the OP did post again, I wanted to add that I think this reinforces that bitter taste Dr Samuria and I mentioned; well, for me at least.

Bob: "I vow to never let people die helplessly again!"

Bill: "Hey Bob, why the scythe?"

Bob: "To more efficiently kill the helpless, duh."

LOL. No thanks.

[Lorddenorstrus]

Thank you Dr Samuria, we at least seem to see eye to eye here.

Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, won't.



I am out of this thread; but, since the OP did post again, I wanted to add that I think this reinforces that bitter taste Dr Samuria and I mentioned; well, for me at least.

Bob: "I vow to never let people die helplessly again!"

Bill: "Hey Bob, why the scythe?"

Bob: "To more efficiently kill the helpless, duh."

LOL. No thanks.

People insinuating his allies and neighbors from a village vs those that are actively attempting to kill him and said allies and he efficiently deals with the situation. So wow much amaze. The common sense of all have been impressed today.

[Alphabetmaster]

Thank you Dr Samuria, we at least seem to see eye to eye here.

Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, won't.



I am out of this thread; but, since the OP did post again, I wanted to add that I think this reinforces that bitter taste Dr Samuria and I mentioned; well, for me at least.

Bob: "I vow to never let people die helplessly again!"

Bill: "Hey Bob, why the scythe?"

Bob: "To more efficiently kill the helpless, duh."

LOL. No thanks.

Hey, somebody gets it!
I guess I'm just that bad at getting my point across.

[killem2]

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe your wizard doesn't know jack **** about scythes or killing people in their sleep and the thought has never crossed his mind. That's the point of asking for an explanation.

Rules make it clear you take feats to become useful in the said weapon. The penalty is what you take to represent your complete lack of training in the weapon. You're just making player's life hard because you really have a beef with Monte and CO, who made the original rules sets for 3.5.

I'm all for DMs changing things but this is something that should be made clear 100% up front before you make characters. Not at the time of purchase for a weapon.

:smallsigh:

[Shackel]

I was referring actually to the term you were using "faint knowledge". You are positing that wizards and fighters have the same level of knowledge about weapons. I disagree.

There is nothing in the books that spells out how much about the game world any given character knows. That is something that has to be stated and described. If you want your wizard to know how scythes work, and be familiar enough with CDGs and assassinations to actually think about it and plan ahead for it, then write your character that way. But this isn't a given.

You're telling me that all wizards would know to carry a scythe to kill people in their sleep. And I'm saying no, I don't agree that's the case. And the only reason this particular point matters is to determine the player's reasoning in the OP. You have to make the case that this is just automatic common knowledge in the world to justify saying "I'm carrying a scythe around to better kill helpless people".

Has to be declared. Again, it doesn't say anywhere what wizards know about weapons and adventuring. Nowhere. You have to determine for your own wizard what he might know about the world and weapons. Maybe he is intimately familiar with scythes but just doesn't know how to wield one in combat. Maybe he's heard stories from his uncle about adventuring and in them his uncle has described sneaking up on sleeping goblins and orcs and giants, oh my.

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe your wizard doesn't know jack **** about scythes or killing people in their sleep and the thought has never crossed his mind. That's the point of asking for an explanation.

So let me get this straight, then: what, to you, defines the magical point(completely undefined mechanically, mind you, meaning that they do, in fact, have the exact same knowledge) in which a wizard is allowed to say that they know a weapon? A number of skill points in certain subjects? That doesn't work; it's not as if every martial would have that knowledge, nor do they gain bonuses in any such subject. Barbarians in 3.5 can't even read, making that even less likely on "being a martial". Do you need to have weapon proficiency? We've been over that: -4 penalty. That's all. You do not have training with this weapon. Perhaps a certain level? Please, do tell: at what point can a wizard snap their fingers and go: "Oh, yes! A scythe is very good at executing people!"

And do, by the way, also tell why that isn't completely arbitrary. "Nothing says your character knows anything" is completely arbitrary because that means even Fighters can be told they don't know what a scythe is capable of.

I am telling you any wizard can know this information. You don't need to put down that they know this because being able to pick out any weapon you want that you can afford and doesn't have an explicit restriction on it at character creation means your character, through common sense, knows what all of these weapons are. If that wasn't the case, there would be a rule, plain as day to see like in 2e with clerics only being able to use bludgeoning weapons. But there is no rule. There is no precedent. There is no logic.

Maybe in your games, your players need to describe why they have every skill point, every weapon, every bit of knowledge on the world, every spell, every armor choice, etc. But this is not something assumed in the base game or most games at all. Mind you, if you don't need to describe why they have all of those, then, once again, it's awfully arbitrary that it's just the knowledge of weapons, now, isn't it?

[Crake]

Thank you Dr Samuria, we at least seem to see eye to eye here.

Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, won't.



I am out of this thread; but, since the OP did post again, I wanted to add that I think this reinforces that bitter taste Dr Samuria and I mentioned; well, for me at least.

Bob: "I vow to never let people die helplessly again!"

Bill: "Hey Bob, why the scythe?"

Bob: "To more efficiently kill the helpless, duh."

LOL. No thanks.

To be fair, you're using two different meanings of the word helpless there. One is an adjective, describing the villager's inability to help themselves, while the other is a mechanical term describing somone who is completely at the mercy of another.

Personally, I think the fact that this thread has become 7 pages long is the truly ludicrous thing about this whole situation. If he wants to have the scythe, let him have the scythe! If it results in inconsistencies in his character, have the NPCs pick up on that. If it results in him looking like a complete loony, let him deal with the RP repercussions in this "RP heavy" game of yours.

If, however, no problems arise, then you wasted everyone's time over something that was really not a big deal to begin with.

[Hamste]

The Character is Question comes from a purely nomadic-style village. Its inhabitants survive almost purely on animal husbandry.

He'd never have seen a scythe in his life, let alone heard it was good for killing things that were helpless. Besides, his head would have been in his books too much to pay any real attention.

To clarify is this you saying they have never seen a scythe before from some sort of logic or did they specifically say in their backstory that they never saw a scythe before? If they did, I would request the full backstory as your cut down version wouldn't be enough for proper judgement.

[Sandsarecool]

This is quite amusing. Give him the scythe. You're wasting people's time here.

[CharonsHelper]

Hey, somebody gets it!
I guess I'm just that bad at getting my point across.

Either that or your point is bad. I lean that way.

[Strigon]

To clarify is this you saying they have never seen a scythe before from some sort of logic or did they specifically say in their backstory that they never saw a scythe before? If they did, I would request the full backstory as your cut down version wouldn't be enough for proper judgement.

Doesn't even particularly matter; he could have easily gone up to a soldier, arms salesman (if they exist) or someone similar and said "I'm looking for a weapon that I can use to finish off an enemy once they've been immobilized, with minimum fuss". They would say "well, a scythe would work", and he would go find a scythe.

[Dr.Zero]

Sorry for being late. I didn't leave, I went to sleep. The first post was at around midnight for me.
I haven't read all the posts - just up to all of page 4 - but I should say something before I forget.

You wanted a backstory? Fine. It boils down to:
My village was plagued by a deadly and virulent disease. It killed lots of them, including my loved ones. I vowed that when I grew up, I would never allow people to die helplessly again. I would bring life, and light into their world.

This is minus most of the flowery text that makes this quite a nice Backstory, and the overarching goal.

Stats?
Str 8 Dex 10 Con 14 Int 16 Wis 12 Cha 12

I initially suggested him to play a Cleric, but he wanted to play a Wizard. I respected that, and his fluff reasons, I felt, were adequate.

I have this feelings that you're trolling the whole board. :smallsmile:
If not, and you need a backstory for his scythe, I suggest to your player to use this:

"Once I went inside a weapon store, tried some different weapons, and noticed the damn scythe seemed to be nice. Indeed I evaluated that it could easily cut off clean the head of a man. Damn, I almost cut in half the shopkeeper by mistake just swinging the thing around. So I picked it. I mean, I went there appositely to buy a weapon, so at least I picked the one which I think works better. And, hey, it looks like a cooler and more menacing staff anyway."


There, perfect and realistic backstory.

[Dr.Samurai]

And do, by the way, also tell why that isn't completely arbitrary.
It is arbitrary. That has been my point. The "magic point" at which they know that you referenced is also my point. It's all up to you, or me. More of you are in agreement that any wizard would prepare for adventuring by buying a scythe to kill sleeping creatures. That doesn't make it "the right way" or the default game assumptions.

I am telling you any wizard can know this information.
I agree they can know it.

You don't need to put down that they know this because being able to pick out any weapon you want that you can afford and doesn't have an explicit restriction on it at character creation means your character, through common sense, knows what all of these weapons are.
This here, this constant muddying of the what we're talking about, is what makes these threads so interesting.

I have never argued that a wizard shouldn't know what a scythe is.

Maybe in your games, your players need to describe why they have every skill point, every weapon, every bit of knowledge on the world, every spell, every armor choice, etc. But this is not something assumed in the base game or most games at all.
When in doubt of your own position, exaggerate and misrepresent!

Mind you, if you don't need to describe why they have all of those, then, once again, it's awfully arbitrary that it's just the knowledge of weapons, now, isn't it?
I don't think you know what arbitrary means. It isn't arbitrary to think that someone trained in all non-exotic weaponry, and with the physique to likely be a manual laborer if/when he isn't fighting, would have more knowledge about scythes and weapons in general than a wizard that only knows how to use a handful of simple weapons and isn't suited to manual labor. That is not an "arbitrary" distinction. Your assertion that wizards and fighters know the same things about weapons is unfounded. It may be true of any pair of fighters or wizards, it depends on their backstory. But as a general statement, it seems unlikely.

[Darth_Versity]

Neither of those is true. It's not metagamey at all.

Sorry, I must have missed the part in my education when the teacher told me that all opinions are invalid because Strigon knows all.

Maybe I was distracted by the voice in the sky telling me not to eat bagels.

My point is that I understand where the OP is coming from, even if I disagree with it. I would not stop my players from using anything but she already has. Regardless of the reason, if she is unwilling to budge on the issue, as fellow gamers it would be better to provide a solution rather than keep pointing fingers and calling each other names. Wouldn't you agree?

So back to my original point. Providing a house rule that all CDG are x4 crits allows the player to use a more thematically appropriate weapon without losing the benefit he was looking for.

[rrwoods]

Hey, somebody gets it!
No, not really.

I guess I'm just that bad at getting my point across.
This is more like it.

While it's apparently true that his backstory and his mechanical reason for wanting this (sub-optimal!) weapon seem to be in conflict, I don't see where you've asked the player about the apparent conflict. What it sounds like is that when he gave his reason, you said (or wanted to say) no. Why don't you politely point out the conflict and ask the player how he intends to resolve it?

I'll repeat something Red Fel said earlier: You originally posted asking a question, and when a bunch of people came and answered it, you weren't happy with the answer. Did you really intend to ask a question at all?

[Elkad]

....akin to telling a barbarian he/she cant use magic items bc they are superstitious......

At least that has early-edition rules supporting it.
My first Barbarian had ONE magic item from 3rd until about 12th level. A charm from his tribal shaman to "ward off evil spirits" (Protection from Evil, CL1)
Eventually he carried around a +5 two-handed sword that granted him 25 strength, but he still used a non-magic spear unless he was fighting a demigod or something.
Oh, and he studied some "exercise manuals" (Tomes), but those aren't magic, just hard work.

[Alphabetmaster]

No, not really.

This is more like it.

While it's apparently true that his backstory and his mechanical reason for wanting this (sub-optimal!) weapon seem to be in conflict, I don't see where you've asked the player about the apparent conflict. What it sounds like is that when he gave his reason, you said (or wanted to say) no. Why don't you politely point out the conflict and ask the player how he intends to resolve it?

I'll repeat something Red Fel said earlier: You originally posted asking a question, and when a bunch of people came and answered it, you weren't happy with the answer. Did you really intend to ask a question at all?
I'm trying to get a hold on him, but he hasn't replied to me yet. I'm not a evil DM, but I don't post my entire thought process on the boards. Sorry.

To answer that Question: I get it. I just thought it was normal to try and defend such a position, to allow people so see both sides. Often they aren't as clear as each other when a problem is first presented.

Also, 7 pages of disapproval in under 24 hours? That's quite something.



I concede. He can have his Scythe, good reason or not.
Congratulations, board. You win.

[Strigon]

Sorry, I must have missed the part in my education when the teacher told me that all opinions are invalid because Strigon knows all.

Maybe I was distracted by the voice in the sky telling me not to eat bagels.

My point is that I understand where the OP is coming from, even if I disagree with it. I would not stop my players from using anything but she already has. Regardless of the reason, if she is unwilling to budge on the issue, as fellow gamers it would be better to provide a solution rather than keep pointing fingers and calling each other names. Wouldn't you agree?

So back to my original point. Providing a house rule that all CDG are x4 crits allows the player to use a more thematically appropriate weapon without losing the benefit he was looking for.

There's no need to get snippy. Your opinion is valid, but if you use it to support one side or another in an argument, it will be challenged.

Weapons are designed to hurt people. This is a fact. Thus, choosing a weapon based on its ability to do damage is entirely reasonable, in character. Which is the exact opposite of metagaming.
Likewise, it is a fact that high level characters survive far worse than a dagger to the throat.

Using that houserule would fix the problem, but I never said it wouldn't; only that the scythe isn't entirely unreasonable.

[Sandsarecool]

To answer that Question: I get it. I just thought it was normal to try and defend such a position, to allow people so see both sides. Often they aren't as clear as each other when a problem is first presented. Interesting thought process. Weird, but it seems valid. Though one would suggest finding a better way to do this next time, hm?


Also, 7 pages of disapproval in under 24 hours? That's quite something.
Don't even think about it. You won't like it.


I concede. He can have his Scythe, good reason or not.
Congratulations, board. You win.
*cue 'We are the Champions' music*
Huzzah, for we have prevailed.


...Sorry. Couldn't resist.

[rrwoods]

I'm trying to get a hold on him, but he hasn't replied to me yet. I'm not a evil DM, but I don't post my entire thought process on the boards. Sorry.
No need to apologize. Just realize that "I don't post my entire thought process on the boards. Sorry." reads very much like negative spin on "I didn't give you much information about the situation, but I expected you to answer my question sufficiently." You have a game you need to run, and you came here presumably looking for advice on how to run it. If you don't need that advice I'm confused as to why you asked the question in the first place; if you do need that advice then by not providing sufficient information to answer the question, you are missing out (not us).


To answer that Question: I get it. I just thought it was normal to try and defend such a position, to allow people so see both sides. Often they aren't as clear as each other when a problem is first presented.
Huh? I legitimately can't understand what you're saying here. You asked the question because you were looking for defenses of a single position, in order to see both positions? I'm confused.

(EDIT: had said "defensive" when I meant "defenses")


Also, 7 pages of disapproval in under 24 hours? That's quite something.
Not really; as is typical for "badwrongfun" threads (especially ones where it's a real situation) there's a bunch of passionate arguing going on here. Including from people who hold your view.


I concede. He can have his Scythe, good reason or not.
Congratulations, board. You win.
Point --------> .

You ---------> o

But hey, if you're not listening, I'm'a stop talking.

[Sandsarecool]

Huh? I legitimately can't understand what you're saying here. You asked the question because you were looking for defensive of a single position, in order to see both positions? I'm confused.
No. I believe this is where you defend your position to get others to help you defend. This opens up loads of possible issues quickly, as everybody suddenly starts fighting each other. They also get resolved faster. Sometimes.

Though it's not a very nice thing to do if you came in with that intention.

[Âmesang]

I've the sudden urge to play as a Suel wizard in a WORLD OF GREYHAWK® game who worships Lendor, the God of Time, and carries a scythe to put forth a "father time" visage.

[Dr.Samurai]

I concede. He can have his Scythe, good reason or not.
Congratulations, board. You win.
This is for the best I think Alphabetmaster. It will just be tough and make just as little sense if scythes are somehow kept from him for the remainder of the game. It is a common farming tool/weapon in the world, so he should be able to get his hands on one if he wants to.

But tell him that you think it's weird and see if you can work out some justification for it together. But I think outright banning it isn't the right solution.

[dascarletm]

I'm trying to get a hold on him, but he hasn't replied to me yet. I'm not a evil DM, but I don't post my entire thought process on the boards. Sorry.

To answer that Question: I get it. I just thought it was normal to try and defend such a position, to allow people so see both sides. Often they aren't as clear as each other when a problem is first presented.

Also, 7 pages of disapproval in under 24 hours? That's quite something.



I concede. He can have his Scythe, good reason or not.
Congratulations, board. You win.

Groupthink wins again.

Do whatever you want, and you're not an evil DM. I personally think that the imagery is silly/cringy, but I also wouldn't impose this view on a player of mine. I'm glad you are letting him use the scythe, but you're not a bad person for feeling it is meta-gamey.

EDIT:
If it bothers you, in your future games you should house-rule scythes to have different stats.

[Zanos]

This is quite amusing. Give him the scythe. You're wasting people's time here.
To be fair, anyone who is posting in any thread here is sort of wasting time, by certain metrics.

Also, 7 pages of disapproval in under 24 hours? That's quite something.



I concede. He can have his Scythe, good reason or not.
Congratulations, board. You win.
We did it reddit!

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm fairly new to the Playground (though not PbP here). Is blue text like "joke" text or something?

[LoyalPaladin]

Are you within your rights? Yes, but if I was that player, I would walk away and find a new GM (I have little tolerance in a GM telling me what weapons my character can and cannot use, if I did, I would be playing 2nd Edition where clerics could only use bludgeoning weapons, etc).
This is basically it.

[CharonsHelper]

I'm fairly new to the Playground (though not PbP here). Is blue text like "joke" text or something?

Yes - on this forum blue text is sarcasm/joking.

[Keltest]

Yes - on this forum blue text is sarcasm/joking.

Please note that this is not a hard and fast rule, and many people can mean many things with blue text, including nothing.

[dascarletm]

Please note that this is not a hard and fast rule, and many people can mean many things with blue text, including nothing.

Yeah, it doesn't really mean anything at all. I for example am being completely genuine with this, but I bet many people will read it as sarcastic none-the-less so, food for thought.

[Dr.Samurai]

This is basically it.
I swear I'm not looking to continue arguing after the OP has changed their position but... explain to me the difference please.

How is "I'm not letting you do this" different from "I'm not letting you not let me do this"?

Aren't they both putting their foot down for what they want? Why the implication that the DM (who ended up changing her mind btw) is doing something bad?

[Dr.Samurai]

@dascarletm: I lol'ed! :smallbiggrin:

[Red Fel]

I'm trying to get a hold on him, but he hasn't replied to me yet. I'm not a evil DM, but I don't post my entire thought process on the boards. Sorry.

I can't speak for everyone else, but it's hard for me to give a complete and even-handed answer when a poster - not just you - doesn't give a complete explanation. I have observed that a lot of people jump to conclusions, myself included, when there isn't enough in front of us to build a complete narrative.

So, yeah, while the "entire thought process" might be a lot, perhaps giving more than you did in the OP might, in the future, better enable us to understand your position. Without enough, there's going to be a lot of assuming going on - as you've no doubt realized.


To answer that Question: I get it. I just thought it was normal to try and defend such a position, to allow people so see both sides. Often they aren't as clear as each other when a problem is first presented.

I don't understand this. At least I think I don't. And if I do, I don't agree with it. Let me explain.

First: Is it normal to defend a position? Yes, but. Yes, it is normal to defend a position you espouse. But in this case, you asked what we thought. In that situation, defending your position makes the question feel disingenuous - why ask if you only wanted confirmation? So while it is normal to defend your position in a vacuum, it's not always the best strategy if you're asking - genuinely asking - others to validate you.

Second: Does defending your position allow people to see both sides? No. It allows people to see one side - yours. There was nobody here providing the player's side, except you, and you had already taken a position. This wasn't a case of "Here is A, here is B, which is right?" This was a case of, "I did A, am I right?" Defending A is not the same thing as allowing people to see B - if anything, it's the opposite.

Third: The side that needed to be made clear was the side being presented, namely yours. Oftentimes, posters - myself included - will disregard later amendments to the OP, because (and follow the logic) if they were important enough to the outcome, you would have included them in the first place. Including more information once debate has begun smacks of moving the goalposts, whether that's true or not. That's why it's so important to be clear and complete upfront, rather than simply hoping that other posters will catch your unstated drift, and offering clarification after the fact.


Also, 7 pages of disapproval in under 24 hours? That's quite something.

You're new here, aren't you?

Teasing aside, this is a subforum dedicated (primarily) to two now-dead game systems, D&D 3.0 and 3.5. (Also PF, but it's not dead.) Aside from threads on humor and optimization, there is nothing else for us to do but to disagree and disapprove at length. Seven pages is nothing for this forum.


I concede. He can have his Scythe, good reason or not.
Congratulations, board. You win.

Please don't look at it that way. It's not a case of everyone trying to beat you, or anything like that. It's not a competition. Most of the posters here - even those with a more severe choice of words - see themselves as trying to help one another. We're not always subtle, friendly, or gentle. But the intent, frequently, is good.

Here, the intent was to advise you against singling out one character, particularly for a reason that - to many of us - made little sense. And yet, even when the forum disagrees with you, even when it disagrees with you strongly, that doesn't mean you need to surrender. Listen, yes, and acknowledge, hopefully. But the Rule of Fun is prime at any table, and if your table overall benefits more from completely disregarding the advice in this thread, do you.

I've seen threads where that happened. I've seen threads where the forums blasted DMs for railroading, for using DMPCs, for singling out characters, for running ultra-lethal campaigns, for pulling "gotcha" fall dilemmas on Paladins... But the players loved it. And you know what? Even though I may disagree with a DM who does things like that, and strongly, I encouraged them to do what made the table happy.

So instead of looking at this as, "Okay, forum, you win, I give up," step back, and think, "Would listening to the forum's advice make people at my table have more fun? Would it let me have more fun?" If the answer is yes, don't think of it as a win for the forum, think of it as a win for you. And if the answer is no, tell the forum to get stuffed, and do right by your table.

[LoyalPaladin]

I swear I'm not looking to continue arguing after the OP has changed their position but... explain to me the difference please.

How is "I'm not letting you do this" different from "I'm not letting you not let me do this"?

Aren't they both putting their foot down for what they want? Why the implication that the DM (who ended up changing her mind btw) is doing something bad?
I didn't read the entire thread, mostly the first page, I'll admit.

But the comment I quoted stated the DM was within her rights as a DM, as she is running the game.

Where I disagree is that, assuming he was either proficient with it or it was a readily available weapon, the player is also well within his rights to use it. When GM's arbitrarily make decisions around a player's build, it often times (not always) is them overstepping their boundaries and exercising too much control.

I don't feel strongly enough about it to call it tyranny. But some DM's take it far enough in that direction. D&D is a group effort where the players and the DM need to coexist. A player who says "If I don't get this ridiculous thing, I'm leaving." Is usually a bad egg, but a scythe is not among the ridiculous things in D&D. On the other side, a DM who says "This is my game and everything will go according to my plan." Is also a bad egg. Since OP has apparently changed her position, I'd venture to say she is not a bad egg.

[Dr.Zero]

I swear I'm not looking to continue arguing after the OP has changed their position but... explain to me the difference please.

How is "I'm not letting you do this" different from "I'm not letting you not let me do this"?

Aren't they both putting their foot down for what they want? Why the implication that the DM (who ended up changing her mind btw) is doing something bad?

Because the GM kinda invaded the field of the other side.
GM can do a lot of things and has a LOT of freedom: plan and create the campaign, create and play NPCs, s/he has a whole world to play with.

Players can play with their characters and that is their freedom. And blocking their only freedom with "strange" reasonings, which btw, are weak (accusing of meta-gaming because the players uses the knowledge about the crit damage, when, as I proved with the joke backstory of the weapon store, that is incredibly easy to justify IC, even if the GM wants to be annoying) means reducing a bit more their role.

So, the difference is that I can put my foot down if you try to enter in my property, and I'm right.
You can put your foot down insisting that you want to enter in my property, and that's wrong.

(Yes, the GM can appeal to rule 0, but the player can appeal to rule -1: "Goodbye."; which was the "This is basically it" which you quoted).

Edit: Ah, ninj'ed!:smallbiggrin:

[ryu]

I didn't read the entire thread, mostly the first page, I'll admit.

But the comment I quoted stated the DM was within her rights as a DM, as she is running the game.

Where I disagree is that, assuming he was either proficient with it or it was a readily available weapon, the player is also well within his rights to use it. When GM's arbitrarily make decisions around a player's build, it often times (not always) is them overstepping their boundaries and exercising too much control.

I don't feel strongly enough about it to call it tyranny. But some DM's take it far enough in that direction. D&D is a group effort where the players and the DM need to coexist. A player who says "If I don't get this ridiculous thing, I'm leaving." Is usually a bad egg, but a scythe is not among the ridiculous things in D&D. On the other side, a DM who says "This is my game and everything will go according to my plan." Is also a bad egg. Since OP has apparently changed her position, I'd venture to say she is not a bad egg.

There's also the fact that the DM has control of, like, 98% or more of observable reality in most games. Unless something a player is planning will break the setting in half, or distress another player does it really mean the end of the world to let them have their half percent share to themselves?

[zergling.exe]

So the thread is wrapping up, but I have a question: What if the DM just says 'Scythes as described in the PHB do not exist. If you want a weapon similar to the farming implement, use halberd stats; if you want a war scythe use guisarme stats.'?

[Xerlith]

This entire thread is exactly why I keep a simple houserule available to my players:

As long, as the handedness and damage type fit, fluff your weapon as whatever, preferably from the same category.

[Zaydos]

So the thread is wrapping up, but I have a question: What if the DM just says 'Scythes as described in the PHB do not exist. If you want a weapon similar to the farming implement, use halberd stats; if you want a war scythe use guisarme stats.'?

I'd want to know why I can set a farming scythe against a charge or use it to deal piercing damage. Both of those are far stranger than the x4 crit (and Greataxe remains actually better for the coup de grace purpose than a default scythe). I'd probably suggest making a farming scythe a 2d4, x2 crit, simple trip weapon. Gives it a purpose, makes it easily available to dread necromancers and sorcerers who might want it for thematic purposes, it's comparable to a spear (1d8, x3 crit), does help out simple weapon wielding trip builds (do those exist?) so might help a cleric-tripper but if you're tripping enough for trip to be worth more than +1x crit you'd probably want to take XWP (Spiked Chain) anyway.

For war-scythe I might suggest longspear but slashing instead of piercing instead of guisarme. It was a peasant weapon (read simple weapon) related to a guisarme but more simplistic, without the hook and curve to trip people. Longspear is guisarme without trip, might just make it 2d4, x3 crit, 2 handed, simple weapon.

[AvatarVecna]

So the thread is wrapping up, but I have a question: What if the DM just says 'Scythes as described in the PHB do not exist. If you want a weapon similar to the farming implement, use halberd stats; if you want a war scythe use guisarme stats.'?

Either weapon will be decent at the job of "finish off helpless foes", but they're not as advantageous as the scythe was, so per the earlier example of "asking the weapon shop guy what the best execution weapon is" these wouldn't have been suggested. Of course, if scythes don't exist in that way, the shop owner would probably instead suggest...a greataxe. Because a greataxe is almost as good as a scythe for executions, and is exactly as good as a scythe if you have a low Strength (as this wizard has been implied to have). If the wizard's basing their "choose an execution weapon" based on a weapon's reputation in media rather than the shop owner's opinion, both a scythe and a big axe would have a good reputation in popular literature and other sources of media (executioner's axe, reaper's scythe, etc). Of course, in that latter scenario, it would be reasonable for the wizard to decide that a halberd or guisarme (with their axe blade on a long pole) fits their idea of an executioner's axe better than a greataxe does, even if the greataxe is objectively better at the job, so they might go with the polearm. Of course, it's once again worth mentioning that they would probably choose the scythe over the polearms if it was an option, because a scythe is an even more imfamous execution weapon than an executioner's axe, being wielded by Death itself.

But yeah, if scythe isn't an option, and the Wizard's choice of execution weapon is based purely on their exposure to weapons through media (news/literature/witnessing executions/whatever), the Wizard might go for the halberd, which isn't a terrible weapon for executions even if it's not strictly optimal for the job. If they ask a more informed person their opinion, though, that person might tell them that a greataxe is better.

[Xerlith]

I'd want to know why I can set a farming scythe against a charge or use it to deal piercing damage..

Because it has a spiked end. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_scythe#Specifics)

[Zaydos]

Because it has a spiked end. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_scythe#Specifics)

Nope, specifically talking about farming scythes and not war scythes, they were making War Scythes Guisarmes not Halberds.

[Dr.Samurai]

There are no war scythes in the PHB just to be clear. The picture is clearly a farming scythe (though reinforced as mentioned in the description) and all of the pics people are posting to enforce the Rule of Cool are pictures of farming scythes (Grim Reaper scythes).

[ryu]

There are no war scythes in the PHB just to be clear. The picture is clearly a farming scythe (though reinforced as mentioned in the description) and all of the pics people are posting to enforce the Rule of Cool are pictures of farming scythes (Grim Reaper scythes).

Which still makes a lot of sense for being good at coup de grace. Think about it. If you're getting a position with a clean swing catching the target with the inner blade some body part should damn well go flying. Alternatively they're on the ground helpless and you're bringing the point down with full momentum? Possibly pulling on the way out? Yeah either way that's going to cut a lot harder than some glorified pocket knife.

[Necroticplague]

So the thread is wrapping up, but I have a question: What if the DM just says 'Scythes as described in the PHB do not exist. If you want a weapon similar to the farming implement, use halberd stats; if you want a war scythe use guisarme stats.'?

Then the player shrugs, crosses out 'scythe' and writes either 'mercurial fullblade', 'kaorti resin greatsword' or 'Minotaur Greathammer', and you're back to square one. At some level, you're just gonna have to accept that there'll always be a 'best CdG weapon', and just settle with what they choose.

[CharonsHelper]

One interesting point of note: for a STR 8 character, a greataxe would actually be a better choice for CDG than a scythe anyway. With STR 10 the scythe would be a hair better (20 average damage scythe vs 19.5 for the greataxe) and moreso at higher STR, but for a STR 8 character the greataxe is superior anyway (16 average damage scythe vs 16.5 for the greataxe).

(And that doesn't even include exotic weapons since they're not proficient with martial ones anyway there is no disadvantage in going exotic.)

[Kish]

I'm trying to get a hold on him, but he hasn't replied to me yet.
I think there are two or actually three separate issues here. One, as I understand it, is that you consider a wizard using a scythe silly but are unwilling to address that by either removing scythes as martial weapons from the game entirely or by changing them in a way that makes them less ideal coup de grace weapons--you want him to agree with certain of your assumptions about scythes and what he would know about them, which he does not agree with. The second is that your understanding of his background is incompatible with performing coups de grace, regardless of the weapon he performs them with. The third is that you've taken your ball and gone home and will never read this, but hey.

For the first, I think we've done as much as we can. No matter how silly you think we all are, you're now at least aware that "this is so obviously goofy everyone but him will know it's wrong" is not accurate.

For the second, though, I think you should first figure out exactly what your assumptions are. He's an adventurer--which might mean he's a do-gooder, a noble hero who protects the innocent, but is real unlikely to not mean he's willing to kill, and kill, and kill. What are your expectations? If you're going to be uncomfortable with your players killing helpless enemies, then you should talk to them all about it. Between someone who doesn't see a difference between fireballing a dozen bandits and cutting the throat of the unconscious sole survivor of that fireball, and someone who thinks killing a helpless enemy is entirely different from killing a standing combatant, I don't think either is "wrong" as such, but they need to arrive at some kind of compromise or playing together isn't going to be fun for at least one of them.

Then the player shrugs, crosses out 'scythe' and writes either 'mercurial fullblade', 'kaorti resin greatsword' or 'Minotaur Greathammer', and you're back to square one. At some level, you're just gonna have to accept that there'll always be a 'best CdG weapon', and just settle with what they choose.
I think there's a real possibility that the problem here is entirely that Alphabetmaster finds the image of a wizard with a farm implement silly (something they insisted on quite fiercely, whether it's all that's going on here or not), and if it had started with "greatsword" instead there would never have been a problem.

[Eldariel]

One interesting point of note: for a STR 8 character, a greataxe would actually be a better choice for CDG than a scythe anyway. With STR 10 the scythe would be a hair better (20 average damage scythe vs 19.5 for the greataxe) and moreso at higher STR, but for a STR 8 character the greataxe is superior anyway (16 average damage scythe vs 16.5 for the greataxe).

(And that doesn't even include exotic weapons since they're not proficient with martial ones anyway there is no disadvantage in going exotic.)

While that's strictly speaking true, remember that the bellcurve for Scythe is much more stable than Greataxe (3d12 vs. 4d8). Thus, Greataxe flops much more often than the Scythe, though it can also reach unexpected numbers more often.

[Elkad]

It's not completely insane to houserule that a CDG requires a successful touch attack instead of auto-hitting.

+9ish to hit (effectively prone and dex=0) vs touch should be an auto-hit for almost anyone. A low-str character with a non-proficiency penalty would be one of the exceptions.

[CharonsHelper]

While that's strictly speaking true, remember that the bellcurve for Scythe is much more stable than Greataxe (3d12 vs. 4d8). Thus, Greataxe flops much more often than the Scythe, though it can also reach unexpected numbers more often.

True. (And actually the scythe would be 8d4 which is even more stable.)

[ryu]

True. (And actually the scythe would be 8d4 which is even more stable.)

And considering the levels the wizard is likely to care about this at all are fairly low stability rules over swingy high numbers with an iron fist. This is assuming he graduates to more effective spells with time of course.

[AvatarVecna]

While that's strictly speaking true, remember that the bellcurve for Scythe is much more stable than Greataxe (3d12 vs. 4d8). Thus, Greataxe flops much more often than the Scythe, though it can also reach unexpected numbers more often.

In point of fact, it's 3d12 vs 8d4. It's also worth mentioning that, for any Str modifier other than a penalty, a Scythe is strictly speaking better on average than a Greataxe for Coup De Grace (although not by much, at low Str values). A Str 8 character will wield either one equally well for CDG purposes, a Str 10 character will do better with a Greataxe than a Scythe ~44.3% of the time, a Str 14 character will do better with a Greataxe than a Scythe ~28.3% of the time, and so on. For a Wizard with Str 8, they're both equally valid options for CDG (although a Greataxe is obviously better for using it in more standard combat).

[Rakoa]

Please don't look at it that way. It's not a case of everyone trying to beat you, or anything like that. It's not a competition. Most of the posters here - even those with a more severe choice of words - see themselves as trying to help one another. We're not always subtle, friendly, or gentle. But the intent, frequently, is good.

Here, the intent was to advise you against singling out one character, particularly for a reason that - to many of us - made little sense. And yet, even when the forum disagrees with you, even when it disagrees with you strongly, that doesn't mean you need to surrender. Listen, yes, and acknowledge, hopefully. But the Rule of Fun is prime at any table, and if your table overall benefits more from completely disregarding the advice in this thread, do you.

I've seen threads where that happened. I've seen threads where the forums blasted DMs for railroading, for using DMPCs, for singling out characters, for running ultra-lethal campaigns, for pulling "gotcha" fall dilemmas on Paladins... But the players loved it. And you know what? Even though I may disagree with a DM who does things like that, and strongly, I encouraged them to do what made the table happy.

So instead of looking at this as, "Okay, forum, you win, I give up," step back, and think, "Would listening to the forum's advice make people at my table have more fun? Would it let me have more fun?" If the answer is yes, don't think of it as a win for the forum, think of it as a win for you. And if the answer is no, tell the forum to get stuffed, and do right by your table.

My favourite person on these forums, everyone. A round of applause!

[digiman619]

My favourite person on these forums, everyone. A round of applause!

....................................Applause
......................Applause........... Applause
..............Applause............................ ..... Applause
Applause .................................................. ..........Applause
.............Applause ..................................Applause
......................Applause........... Applause
....................................Applause

Admittedly, that's more like a diamond of applause, but it's the best I can do.

[Zaydos]

Are we supposed to do something like this?
ApplauseApplause
ApplauApplseApause
ApplApplauseApplause
ApApplApplauseApplause
ApplApplauseApplause
ApplauApplseApause
ApplauseApplause

Still sort of diamond-shaped.

[KillianHawkeye]

It's not completely insane to houserule that a CDG requires a successful touch attack instead of auto-hitting.

+9ish to hit (effectively prone and dex=0) vs touch should be an auto-hit for almost anyone. A low-str character with a non-proficiency penalty would be one of the exceptions.

While you're correct that this wouldn't be an insane house rule, it also isn't helpful or even a particularly useful rule to implement. All it really does is make coup-de-grace worthless since it no longer crits all the time.

[Zanos]

While you're correct that this wouldn't be an insane house rule, it also isn't helpful or even a particularly useful rule to implement. All it really does is make coup-de-grace worthless since it no longer crits all the time.
He didn't say anything about it not being an auto crit, although even if it didn't it'd be fort vs damage still.

[AvatarVecna]

Making something more circle-ish than a diamond just requires more lines.




A
E------------P
S--------------------P
U--------------------------L
A------------------------------A
L--------------------------------U
P----------------------------------S
P--------------------------------E
A------------------------------A
E--------------------------P
S--------------------P
U------------L
A