Holy Avenger: Why does it have to be a sword?

[Arkhios]

This bugs me really hard.

Why is it always a sword? Would it be blasphemous to let the Holy Avenger be any melee instead of any sword?

[Matticusrex]

The magic items listed are just a suggestion, you can just turn "holy avenger" in to an enchantment and put it on anything, kind of like frostbrand and flametongue.

[Lance Tankmen]

already answered , but yeah just reskin it to any weapon, it can already be a greatsword so a great axe is hardly insane.

[Unoriginal]

It's iconic.

You could make Excalibur a spear if you wish so, but would you, as a default?

An Holy Avenger is the tier just below that.

[Arkhios]

The magic items listed are just a suggestion, you can just turn "holy avenger" in to an enchantment and put it on anything, kind of like frostbrand and flametongue.


already answered , but yeah just reskin it to any weapon, it can already be a greatsword so a great axe is hardly insane.

I'm aware that they're just suggestions, but when you have a DM who prefers to use the rules as written – including sticking to the suggestions only – there's no variation. It gets frustrating, especially when you prefer another type of weapon over a sword for flavor reasons.

Why should anyone have to bend their vision about their character just because the rules suggest a specific type of weapon. Imho, the rules should encourage to use more variation instead of suggesting iconic types.

I get that using the one thing that was suggested by the book is easier for the DM than having to decide for yourself, but it's not like it would be a huge effort to do so.

[Lance Tankmen]

it is easy, its one of the easiest things to do, requires no work from the DM, just a warhammer.. a long sword that does bludgeoning instead of slashing... any DM that is refusing to give on something so minor is just out to ruin players fun, personal opinion

[Ignimortis]

This bugs me really hard.

Why is it always a sword? Would it be blasphemous to let the Holy Avenger be any melee instead of any sword?

Because Heroes Prefer Swords (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroesPreferSwords). In the genre that the paladin ideal was built on, i.e. the chivalric romance, knights of honor usually wielded swords. There are exceptions, but just check the legend of the Knights of the Round Table or the Germanic mythology. There are dozens of named famous swords, some spears, maybe a mace or two. I can't even recall if there was an axe in European myths that was a hero's favored weapon.

[Arkhios]

Because Heroes Prefer Swords (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroesPreferSwords). In the genre that the paladin ideal was built on, i.e. the chivalric romance, knights of honor usually wielded swords. There are exceptions, but just check the legend of the Knights of the Round Table or the Germanic mythology. There are dozens of named famous swords, some spears, maybe a mace or two. I can't even recall if there was an axe in European myths that was a hero's favored weapon.

I know, but it's boring to just stick to those clichéd fantasies.

Where's the fun playing paladin that's essentially a blue-print copy of any knight of the round table (or just about every other paladin ever made)? Use some imagination and make your own hero. Isn't that the whole point? Why do we have to play umpteenth version of Sir(s) Galahad (or Lancelot or what-have-you) when we play a paladin?

[Ignimortis]

I know, but it's boring to just stick to those clichéd fantasies.

Where's the fun playing paladin that's essentially a blue-print copy of any knight of the round table? Use some imagination and make your own hero. Isn't that the whole point? Why do we have to play umpteenth version of Sir Galahad when we play a paladin?

To be honest, I've never seen an actual paladin character that would be a true paladin throughout the game. Everyone and their auntie these days tries to make a Gray Guard, a Vengeance Paladin who has a perpetual five o'clock shadow, or some other sort of "edgy and cool" person. Even those that were altruistic and somewhat sensible usually veered towards LN or NG, not LG. And the only person I know who tried to play a nice paladin derailed his own character into Judge Dredd after a few months of play.

[Unoriginal]

Why should anyone have to bend their vision about their character just because the rules suggest a specific type of weapon.

Why should a legendary weapon bend itself to conform to a player's specific desire for a character?

[Arkhios]

Why should a legendary weapon bend itself to conform to a player's specific desire for a character?

Who said that a Holy Avenger had to be a sword to begin with?

[Unoriginal]

Who said that a Holy Avenger had to be a sword to begin with?

The creator of the Holy Avenger.

Not trying to be a jerk, here, but the thing is that magic items, and especially ones that are legendary, have a "weight" in the world, an existence outside of the PCs' focal point-of-view.

A Holy Avenger is one tier below unique artifacts. It's the weapon of legendary heroes, who can have an impact on several worlds. It doesn't exist just to give a power boost to a PC.


If your DM is restrictive to the point they don't want to allow any Holy Avengers except swords, it's their prerogative. You can either try to change their mind or change table.

Personally, as a DM I would have no issue having an axe or a warhammer with the same power than a Holy Avenger, that'd be something nice to find in a high level adventure.

[fbelanger]

Excalibur was a polearm.

[JackPhoenix]

It's still less restrictive than in previous editions. In 3.5, where the magic item madness started, Holy Avenger wasn't a weapon enchantment: it was a specific weapon. Longsword, to be exact. None of this "any sword" nonsense. If your paladin specialized in a different weapon, which back then actually cost resources and limited you to a specific weapon, not like today, when you can use longsword, battleaxe or warhammer with exactly same effectivnes? Sucks to be you.

When I GM, there's 5 Holy Avengers in the world. There's a longsword, greatsword, scimitar, halberd and greataxe. If you want one, you must go after one specific example.

[Spore]

Who said that a Holy Avenger had to be a sword to begin with?

So either you are complaining about a strawman GM that uses the item as written. Or you are complaining about fictional culture which we cannot change as individuals. Both are strawmen.

What are you trying to do? Protect your paladin's crops? :smallannoyed:

[Garokson]

If your gm is a stickler, just rename it to the holy revenger and make a axe out of it.

[Sception]

If your gm is a stickler, you dont get to rename or make up anything in terms of variant items. Kind of the defining feature of stickler DMs is that they don't let you do thst kind of stuff.

[Vorpalchicken]

Excalibur was a polearm.
No. It was a hand crossbow. With a laser sight.

[PeteNutButter]

There is something to say about a sword compared to other weapons. The sword is one of few weapons that was developed entirely to fight people, while most other weapons are derived from hunting weapons (bows, spears, clubs etc.) or tools (axes, hammers, etc.).

In that sense the sword is the most "civilized" weapon. That fits with the cliche vision of what a paladin is. Now a DM that has paladin tribal people might seriously have issues if he can't make holy avengers other weapons.

Personally, I'm a fan of allowing more options for DMs and players, especially ones that are purely flavor.

[Arkhios]

No. It was a hand crossbow. With a laser sight.

I thought it was an orbital nuke. Guess I was wrong...

[Eric Diaz]

Sword have a special place in myth, media and D&D.... Not that I care. I'd probably let the PCs find a giant blacksmith to reforge the sword as a greataxe or something. Although knife or club would look funny.

[Eric Diaz]

I think you DO have a point tough: since the Holy Avenger can be ANY sword, why not any weapon? A Holy Avenger battleaxe looks cooler than a shortsword...

[Tanarii]

For the same reason the Vorpal Sword is a sword, the Hammer of Thunderbolts is a hammer, and the Javelin of Lightning is a Javelin. The source material, tradition, and retaining strong(ish) archetypes.

If your DM wants to bend those for your own character vision, more power to them. If they don't, more power to them.

Personally I'm glad 5e went down the path of strong archetypes and DM empowerment to customize as they see fit for their particular world, as opposed to lots of anything goes mods built into the rules. But that's just me.

[Davrix]

I'm aware that they're just suggestions, but when you have a DM who prefers to use the rules as written – including sticking to the suggestions only – there's no variation. It gets frustrating, especially when you prefer another type of weapon over a sword for flavor reasons.

Why should anyone have to bend their vision about their character just because the rules suggest a specific type of weapon. Imho, the rules should encourage to use more variation instead of suggesting iconic types.

I get that using the one thing that was suggested by the book is easier for the DM than having to decide for yourself, but it's not like it would be a huge effort to do so.


This is more a problem with your DM then the book or system. The holy Avenger has been an iconic sword in DND lore for a very long time. Thats how its always been written so that's how its printed now. Nothing is stopping anyone from changing what the weapon type is. Personally I handed a paladin a halberd when one got rolled up on the loot tables. I called it the Holy Avenger of the (insert paladin order) with runes and crests of that order upon it and called it a day.

(also to make clear this next part is not an attack upon you or an insult but merely a point of view I have come to uphold because of my own deeds in a matter very similar to this and what I took away from it)

Also as a lesson I learned the hard way, when I made this very argument to a fellow DM saying that I needed additional rules to make my super special snowflake of a paladin the way i wished and only later realized how miserable I made his game by bulling him into changing how he wanted to run things and have apologized to him ever sense. So just because you feel like you or someone else shouldn't have to bend their vision about your character because the rules don't fall in a way that favors your vision doesn't mean you have the authority to force that way of thinking upon your DM. Its just as much within their right to want to stick to the rules as they are written in the book so its a clear easy way to define the game they wish to run. You each love playing the game your own way and sometimes you don't always get your way sadly but that's lief in general really.

That being said I'm not always a fan of the idea of whatever a DM says is law and the players must fall in line but in this case if they want to follow the book that is something you or anyone should abide and respect as they are putting their time in to run the game so you can play your character. If you have talked to this Dm and they don't want to budge then your sort of out of luck. The real question is how are you planning on getting a holy avenger? Its not something you can just find at your local magic mart. And if you find it is there a specific reason like having PAM that you need it to be something besides a sword? Because if so that is a mechanical argument you could put forth to your DM. I find that many stickler Dm's are a little less so if you give them a logical mechanical argument over a cosmetic one.

[Tetrasodium]

It's still less restrictive than in previous editions. In 3.5, where the magic item madness started, Holy Avenger wasn't a weapon enchantment: it was a specific weapon. Longsword, to be exact. None of this "any sword" nonsense. If your paladin specialized in a different weapon, which back then actually cost resources and limited you to a specific weapon, not like today, when you can use longsword, battleaxe or warhammer with exactly same effectivnes? Sucks to be you.

When I GM, there's 5 Holy Avengers in the world. There's a longsword, greatsword, scimitar, halberd and greataxe. If you want one, you must go after one specific example.

While true that it was a specific weapon that like many of them had roots in a specific module/adventure/etc.. Back in 3.5 there were also rather incredibly extensive ways of building nearly any magic item. A flametongue was a specific combination of attributes yes, but basically any weapon could have one of the many flaming attributes applied to it (flaming, fiery burst, etc) along with near any other combination of magic attributes with their own strengths & benefits. So much so that I had a warforged juggernaught with a bastard sword that had something like dancing, holy, unholy, & defiled enchantments because he was immune to the conflicting alignment penalties. Pretty much anything else took damage , was paralized, & maybe risked a negative level because it was & still is impossible to be opposite poles on the alignment spectrum


I'd suggest that the OP dog up a copy of the 3.5 dmg where it has a huge lists of those enchantments & try to work with your DM through an artificer or something knowing that getting the pieces & equipment that said artificer needs may or may not require various degrees of questing. It looks like it's on sale for about 8$ right now (http://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?filters=0_0_0_0_0_45348_0_0&keywords=dungeon%20master%27s%20guide)

[Azreal]

It's iconic.

You could make Excalibur a spear if you wish so, but would you, as a default?

An Holy Avenger is the tier just below that.

Rhongomyniad, the holy spear King Arthur used. There’s definitely of holy not swords out there to base things on.

[EvilAnagram]

Rhongomyniad, the holy spear King Arthur used. There’s definitely of holy not swords out there to base things on.

The thing about Rhongomyniad is that no one knows what the hell it is. It's not an iconic weapon because it was competing for story space with a cool sword. The Holy Avenger is an iconic weapon for an iconic class, and its limitations emphasize the classic stories it is designed to emulate.

You might not like this, but that's why they made these choices. I understand that 2/3 paladin players play edgy Vengeance paladins with Polearm Master to show how unique and cool they are, but the Holy Avenger is for more classic adventurers.

[Temperjoke]

I feel this is more of a backhanded complaint about your DM, rather than the fact that the Holy Avenger is always a sword.

I mean, aside from the description calling it a sword, there's nothing in the text that couldn't be applied to whatever weapon you want, which has been pointed out. But, as it's also been pointed out, if they had changed it to be applicable to any weapon, a certain group of people who throw tantrums whenever any legacy character/item/spell/location/monster is altered from past editions, would have gone berserk. Is an item really worth it? Especially since most DMs would be willing to be flexible enough for their players to apply it to different weapon anyways.

[Richard369]

Make it whatever you want it to be. I had a Holy Avenger Lance at one point.

[KorvinStarmast]

I know, but it's boring to just stick to those clichéd fantasies.

Take it up with your DM. That's where you get the problem solved.

[Ganymede]

The Holy Avenger being a sword is just one of many Sacred Cows of D&D.

We don't have Holy Avenger flails for the same reason we put both our ability scores and ability modifiers on our character sheet and why fireball does more damage than other third level spells.

[Ignimortis]

I thought it was an orbital nuke. Guess I was wrong...

I mean, you're not wrong... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGWfUwtAQEY) (Fate/SN: UBW spoilers)

[Snowbluff]

It's a long sword ain't it?
Ergo, it's a melee weapon, so you can smite with it.
It's also versatile, so it works with any of the paladin fighting styles.

[EvilAnagram]

It's a long sword ain't it?
Ergo, it's a melee weapon, so you can smite with it.
It's also versatile, so it works with any of the paladin fighting styles.

It can be any sword.

[Unoriginal]

Rhongomyniad, the holy spear King Arthur used. There’s definitely of holy not swords out there to base things on.

And Rhongomyniad is not Excalibur. If someone presented Rhongomyniad as a sword wielded by Arthur, people would ask "why not use one of the swords he had?".

Same way that Mjolnir is a hammer, and if people named a sword like that it would be weird.

[ZorroGames]

I thought it was an orbital nuke. Guess I was wrong...

Only way to be righteously sure...

[JoeJ]

I mean, you're not wrong... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGWfUwtAQEY) (Fate/SN: UBW spoilers)

Wow. A wave motion sword.

[JackPhoenix]

I thought it was an orbital nuke. Guess I was wrong...

Nuke-powered X-ray laser.

[ZorroGames]

I would let you have a Holy Avenger Hand Axe, Mace, Short Sword, Light Hammer, Dagger, Or Sickle. Avenge the common man! Most any simple weapon Holy Avenger...

Maybe Battle Axe, Rapier, Scimitar, War Pick, Warhammer, Flail, or Morning Star. Or Whip, Great Twin Brother of Zorro!

But 1D10, 1D12, 2D6 weapons? They all seem “wrong” somehow but then I am a grognard.

Edit: I hope you are not asking for a logical reason why...

[Tetrasodium]

I went looking in the dmg to check what magic spears there were & unexpectedly found that there are none. There are a few enchantments that can be applied to weapon (any) though. Those enchantments are of warning, vicious, +1, +2, & +3. everything else is limited to swords/axes/bows/etc. I think that people occusing the OP of criticizing his gm might be jumping the gun a bit

[JakOfAllTirades]

To be honest, I've never seen an actual paladin character that would be a true paladin throughout the game.

I've seen a few. When my local gaming club lost their venue, one of the members opened up the basement of the church where he was a pastor so we could continue to hold weekly meetings. He played a truly heroic paladin in our regular D&D 5E game. He also presided at the wedding when my wife (also in that game) and I got married.

When you meet a real Paladin, you'll know it.


As for the Holy Avenger thing: swords were not only a knight's traditional weapon; they were used to ceremonially induct new members into the ranks of knighthood. So there literally wouldn't be any "knights in shining armor" without swords.

[Tetrasodium]

I've seen a few. When my local gaming club lost their venue, one of the members opened up the basement of the church where he was a pastor so we could continue to hold weekly meetings. He played a truly heroic paladin in our regular D&D 5E game. He also presided at the wedding when my wife (also in that game) and I got married.

When you meet a real Paladin, you'll know it.


As for the Holy Avenger thing: swords were not only a knight's traditional weapon; they were used to ceremonially induct new members into the ranks of knighthood. So there literally wouldn't be any "knights in shining armor" without swords.


While true on earth, it does not always apply. One of the main characters in the stormlight archive (https://www.goodreads.com/series/49075-the-stormlight-archive) uses a spear pretty much exclusively & the spear being a commoner's weapon rather than a nobleman's sword is very important to the story as time goes on. At one point a side character comments about why a spear would be a nobleman's weapon in $region or a bow in $otherRegion rather than a spear or a sword as it is in the region where the character is from. Not all fiction is the same

[Laserlight]

When you meet a real Paladin, you'll know it.

I've played LG paladins every now and again, but then I started playing back in 1979 or so. One of my son's buddies played a rogue who, when confronted with the supernatural, converted to paladin. Found a (ruined) church, repaired it, cleaned it, got it reconsecrated, and stood vigil in it, which included "not joining the battle at the church door trying to interrupt the service". He played LG quite well and was rather strict with himself while not at all being a jerk to the rest of the party. He was saying Hail Marys for pretty much continuously the entire rest of the campaign, as penance for his pre-conversion misdeeds and some of the things he inadvertently did or saw after conversion.

[furby076]

i feel this could easily be solved by JC making a PHB update "any magic item here can be swapped by a different base template; where it makes sense". e.g., you can swap weapon base types around and be in RAW, but swapping holy avenger base sword for holy avenger plate armor = home brew

[Pex]

Why should a legendary weapon bend itself to conform to a player's specific desire for a character?

Because players outrank a fictional thing of imagination. No magic item exists without the DM's permission, so a magic item has no say on its function or form. DMs should play with their players, not against them. If a paladin player has been using a warhammer to be such an iconic image for the character to be part of his essence of existence the entire campaign when it comes time to acquire the holy avenger, there is no reason it must never ever be a holy avenger warhammer. It can be one. It should be one. It's destiny.

[GoodmanDL]

Items like Holy Avengers are the stuff of legend. There's no particular reason a DM couldn't introduce a Holy Avenger that wasn't a sword. However, you can get a lot out of the adventure by giving the non-standard Holy Avenger should have a story component.

Like.... who made the weapon? What was it's purpose? Was it made for someone specific in mind? Is it a famous or culturally significant weapon?

[Unoriginal]

Because players outrank a fictional thing of imagination.

No, they do not. As your own signature puts it "The DM is the world, the gods, the trees and the bees." A player can't decide that the 2m10 Elven Chancellor is smaller so that his barbarian can use his 2m height to intimidate him, nor can they decide the Dwarven Mobster uses a magic axe rather than a magic whip because they need a magic axe for their build.

Same way that the DM can't decide the PC is smaller or must use the weapon looted on a particular enemy.


No magic item exists without the DM's permission, so a magic item has no say on its function or form.

Yet the concept of Holy Avenger exists independently of any DM.



DMs should play with their players, not against them.

I don't call "giving the players everything they want" to be playing "with" them. Maybe "for" them.

I've seen it happen, it's not pretty.

And not giving the players a specific magic item tweaked to fit their character is not "playing against them". As you said, no magic item exist without the DM's permission, and it's their prerogative to give it or not. That's the player's part of "playing with the DM".

As I said, as a DM I would have no issue giving OP a non-sword Holy Avenger. But it would never be an obligation.



If a paladin player has been using a warhammer to be such an iconic image for the character to be part of his essence of existence the entire campaign when it comes time to acquire the holy avenger, there is no reason it must never ever be a holy avenger warhammer. It can be one. It should be one. It's destiny.

No, it "should" not.

There is no reason that a "time to acquire the holy avenger" even happens.

Maybe the DM has decided a Hammer of Thunderbolt should show up. Maybe the DM has a different magic weapon they created thinking of the PC. Hell, maybe an Holy Avenger will show up without it being for the PCs to grab *look at Tomb of Annihilation*.

I sympathize with OP, their DM sounds like pretty restrictive, which is not the style OP prefers. However, it's up to the DM to decide the nature of the magic item, and they decided it would be the iconic sword, then it's their right. Just as it's OP's right to stop playing at this table, as I encourage them to do if they're not having any fun.

[Maelynn]

You could make Excalibur a spear if you wish so, but would you, as a default?

I'd make it a huge rifle, which requires no ammo. And then I'd spell it Ex-Caliber.

[Morty]

The Holy Avenger is always a sword because it always has been, and that's all the reason the game usually needs. It's unlikely anyone has ever put much thought to it. It would be very easy to just declare that a legendary weapon for the most righteous of paladins can be any shape... but if a GM stubbornly refuses to, the game's text will support them.

[Tanarii]

DMs should play with their players, not against them.I don't call "giving the players everything they want" to be playing "with" them. Maybe "for" them.No kidding. Handing players magic weapons someone in the party can actually use may or may not be a good thing depending on what the DM wants out of their campaign. Even tailoring a weapon choice to their feats and fighting style has come merits for consideration.

But Holy Avengers can be used with any melee fighting style except Reach/PAM. IMO that's not an issue, since PAM is already plenty powerful enough as it is. If you build that way, you're the one restricting yourself for using a Holy Avenger. The DM isn't out to get you if it appears as a sword. She is being nice if she makes you a customized Holy Avenger Glaive.



If a paladin player has been using a warhammer to be such an iconic image for the character to be part of his essence of existence the entire campaign when it comes time to acquire the holy avenger, there is no reason it must never ever be a holy avenger warhammer. It can be one. It should be one. It's destiny.No, it "should" not.

There is no reason that a "time to acquire the holy avenger" even happens.Yeah ... that "when it comes time" made me wince Pex. There are plenty of acceptable reasons for a Holy Avenger to not show up at all. Not tailoring magic items to players usability for example, and using random rolls right out of the book. Which is perfectly acceptable and in no way working against the players.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I know, but it's boring to just stick to those clichéd fantasies.
The only fantasy clichés that weren't used as integral building blocks of Dungeons and Dragons are the ones which D&D created. I get where you're coming from, but you shouldn't look to the rulebooks for novel concepts.



Rhongomyniad, the holy spear King Arthur used. There’s definitely of holy not swords out there to base things on.
If you're going with holy not-swords, I'd have gone for the Lance of Longinus, both because it's actually holy and because people actually know things about it.




You should give PCs weapons they're likely to use.No, you shouldn't tailor your stories to the main characters!
My opinion on this should be obvious from my summary, but if it's not...
A TRPG is a storytelling medium, like any novel or video game. If you include, say, a Holy Avenger in your game, it should have a purpose behind it, just like anything you include in a book you're writing or a game you're designing. For weapons like the Holy Avenger, the purpose is presumably so the PCs can use it as a weapon. This means that you should tailor any tailorable details to make them the best for that purposes.
There are cases where fictional characters upgrade or replace their weapons; the most recent in mainstream media is probably Thor's new axe in Infinity War. (Is that a spoiler?) Obviously, in that case his weapon wasn't the same type as his old one, but that isn't the norm; most of the time, characters continue using more or less the same fighting style after an upgrade as before. (For instance, Tanis Half-Elven picks up a magic sword after his nonmagic sword gets dissolved by giant slug acid. It was a weird chapter.)
Why? Because characters are more than just their weapons. A duelist uses a rapier to represent their elegance and emphasize their speed, and a greatsword is neither elegant nor speedy; if a duelist's rapier breaks, it doesn't make much sense to replace it with a greatsword. A barbarian's axe represents their power and ferocity, while a dwarf's hammer represents their power and association with crafting and a cleric's mace represents their holiness*. The weapon a well-designed character uses, like everything else about them, represents some facet of their personality and/or fighting style. If that doesn't change when their weapon changes (e.g, the character development Thor went through after losing Mjolnir), it doesn't make sense to change their weapons, any more than it makes sense to radically alter your protagonist's character design without a corresponding change in their character.
Even if a player's character doesn't have more than thirty seconds of thought put into their non-mechanical design, they probably have at least a subconscious understanding of what they are, which influences and is influenced by** the choices they made regarding that character's appearance. Thus, changing its design without reason makes as much sense as changing the character design of, say, a cheap webcomic's protagonist without reason; it's not as bad as changing a well-done character design with no reason, but even so...why?
TL;DR: If an axe-paladin gains a Holy Avenger as the reward for a quest which proves that he values chivalry and skill over mere power, changing his weapon makes some sense. If the only change the paladin undergoes in that quest is that he finds a Holy Avenger, it doesn't make any sense. Especially if the player still wants to be an axe-paladin.

Of course, if there is some reason for the Holy Avenger to be in the game other than it being a new weapon for the paladin, there might be a reason to keep it a sword. Of course, there's also the question of why you would use the Holy Avenger and not, say, a Holy Grail expy.

*Scepters are a pretty common standard of office for both high-ranking nobles and high-ranking clergy.
**Psychology is complicated.

[hamishspence]

If you're going with holy not-swords, I'd have gone for the Lance of Longinus, both because it's actually holy and because people actually know things about it.

I've seen some fiction that paints it as incredibly unholy and abominable (James Herbert's The Spear, Robin Jarvis's Wyrd Museum series) but the basic idea that it is more "powerful" or at least more significant, than a regular spear, is consistent.

[Pex]

No, they do not. As your own signature puts it "The DM is the world, the gods, the trees and the bees." A player can't decide that the 2m10 Elven Chancellor is smaller so that his barbarian can use his 2m height to intimidate him, nor can they decide the Dwarven Mobster uses a magic axe rather than a magic whip because they need a magic axe for their build.

Same way that the DM can't decide the PC is smaller or must use the weapon looted on a particular enemy.



Yet the concept of Holy Avenger exists independently of any DM.



I don't call "giving the players everything they want" to be playing "with" them. Maybe "for" them.

I've seen it happen, it's not pretty.

And not giving the players a specific magic item tweaked to fit their character is not "playing against them". As you said, no magic item exist without the DM's permission, and it's their prerogative to give it or not. That's the player's part of "playing with the DM".

As I said, as a DM I would have no issue giving OP a non-sword Holy Avenger. But it would never be an obligation.



No, it "should" not.

There is no reason that a "time to acquire the holy avenger" even happens.

Maybe the DM has decided a Hammer of Thunderbolt should show up. Maybe the DM has a different magic weapon they created thinking of the PC. Hell, maybe an Holy Avenger will show up without it being for the PCs to grab *look at Tomb of Annihilation*.

I sympathize with OP, their DM sounds like pretty restrictive, which is not the style OP prefers. However, it's up to the DM to decide the nature of the magic item, and they decided it would be the iconic sword, then it's their right. Just as it's OP's right to stop playing at this table, as I encourage them to do if they're not having any fun.

Exactly right. The DM is the trees and bees and not the PC, so if he wants to give a paladin player a holy avenger warhammer because the paladin has been using a warhammer his entire adventuring career he has every right to do so and no words on a printed page written by someone he's never met except maybe at a gaming convention or whatever can force him otherwise.

[Snails]

I know, but it's boring to just stick to those clichéd fantasies.

Where's the fun playing paladin that's essentially a blue-print copy of any knight of the round table (or just about every other paladin ever made)? Use some imagination and make your own hero. Isn't that the whole point? Why do we have to play umpteenth version of Sir(s) Galahad (or Lancelot or what-have-you) when we play a paladin?

Fantasy cliches are a cornerstone of D&D, and always have been. One of the reasons D&D has been so successful over the decades is those cliches are accessible enough that it is easy for new players to "get it".

In particular, the Paladin and Holy Avenger are a bit more narrow of a cliche than most. Efforts to say that Paladins are just a LG variant of a generic religious warrior that could be any alignment just have not been very successful -- the players have voted and those for the more generic end of the spectrum have lost. Repeatedly.

That said, you can see that 5e is trying to build out the space of Paladin such that it is not purely a Knights of the Round Table. But the cliche is still there even if it is adhered to much less slavishly.

Obviously, no one is required to use the cliches, most especially not exactly as written. If I were DM, I would be open to suggestions that a Holy Avenger might be something else. But if your DM chooses the cliche? Well, you might as well complain about how boring it is that there are fire breathing dragons and vampires that drink blood. Good luck with your superior originality. Maybe you should run your own game and show your friends how it is done?

[hamishspence]

I would tend to prefer a "each culture's paladins tend to use the weapons of their culture" approach. Combine with "each weapon-builder tends to build weapons that reflect their culture"

So - paladins of an underwater race like merfolk, are going to get magic weapons built for them, that suit them. Same with dwarven paladins, halfling paladins, and so on.

4e took a step this way - by allowing any Axe, Heavy Blade, or Hammer, to be made as a Holy Avenger. Maybe 5e ought to take a step further.

[Unoriginal]

Exactly right. The DM is the trees and bees and not the PC, so if he wants to give a paladin player a holy avenger warhammer because the paladin has been using a warhammer his entire adventuring career he has every right to do so and no words on a printed page written by someone he's never met except maybe at a gaming convention or whatever can force him otherwise.

The DM can decide they want to give a paladin a Holy Avenger warhammer. There is no debate against that.

Just as the DM can decide they want to have a Holy Avenger sword because regardless of what a single individual has been using during their entire adventuring career the word doesn't have to bend to accommodate them, and they have every right to do so and no words said by their players or on a forum thread written by someone they've never met except maybe at a gaming convention or whatever can force them otherwise.



Maybe 5e ought to take a step further.

5e ought to do nothing. If a DM wants to change what an Holy Avenger is, they can, the books support it. If they don't want to change it, they can too, the books support it.

People can't blame 5e for offering guidelines but explicitly telling it's ok to not follow them when it's the DM who goes "I must follow the guidelines".

[hamishspence]

It might depend on if they're doing an OOTS-style

"you're the same characters as earlier, but the rules mechanics are now different"

switchover.

If they did, and also said "By the way, your hammer holy avenger crumbles into dust - because hammers can't be holy avengers any more" I can see why the player might be a little miffed.

[Tetrasodium]

I don't call "giving the players everything they want" to be playing "with" them. Maybe "for" them.

I've seen it happen, it's not pretty.

And not giving the players a specific magic item tweaked to fit their character is not "playing against them". As you said, no magic item exist without the DM's permission, and it's their prerogative to give it or not. That's the player's part of "playing with the DM".

As I said, as a DM I would have no issue giving OP a non-sword Holy Avenger. But it would never be an obligation.


That's a reasonable stance sure... can you open up the dmg magic items chapter & list off all the legendary spears? How about just the unique spears in there?

[Unoriginal]

That's a reasonable stance sure... can you open up the dmg magic items chapter & list off all the legendary spears? How about just the unique spears in there?

There is no unique spears in the DMG.

The spear Windvane from Princes of the Apocalypse is both unique and Legendary, however.

Not sure what you are trying to prove, though. Or did you just want me to demonstrate my point?

[GreatWyrmGold]

I've seen some fiction that paints it as incredibly unholy and abominable (James Herbert's The Spear, Robin Jarvis's Wyrd Museum series) but the basic idea that it is more "powerful" or at least more significant, than a regular spear, is consistent.
That's because urban fantasy tries harder to make sense than folklore ever has.



Just as the DM can decide they want to have a Holy Avenger sword because regardless of what a single individual has been using during their entire adventuring career the wor[l]d doesn't have to bend to accommodate them, and they have every right to do so and no words said by their players or on a forum thread written by someone they've never met except maybe at a gaming convention or whatever can force them otherwise.
To continue my previous analogy...there's nothing stopping a fantasy webcomic author from giving their angry barbarian a rapier, but that doesn't mean they should do that.


5e ought to do nothing. If a DM wants to change what an Holy Avenger is, they can, the books support it. If they don't want to change it, they can too, the books support it.
The books support anything in the books. You can say that the books support anything they don't explicitly prevent, but in my humble opinion that would be stupid, because (as you've noted) the books don't prevent anything. I could make a Holy Avenger railgun without any serious issue (just make it a ranged weapon with some appropriately high damage), but that doesn't mean I can say that it's supported by the books. The book doesn't say you can have a Holy Avenger mace, so how is it supported better than the Holy Avenger railgun?

[Tetrasodium]

There is no unique spears in the DMG.

The spear Windvane from Princes of the Apocalypse is both unique and Legendary, however.

Not sure what you are trying to prove, though. Or did you just want me to demonstrate my point?



I made the point earlier when I pointed out the explicitly valid options for magic spears in the dmg. If you need to pick a weapon that doesn't say it can fit on a spear by default in order to point out that you have no real options to hope for if the gm is unwilling to overrrule the magic items chapter's guidelines.. but since you brought up windvane & this thread was about paladin/holy avenger...

Flaw. Windvane makes its wielder mercurial and unreliable. While attuned to the weapon, you gain the following flaw: "I break my vows and plans. Duty and honor mean nothing to me."
Y
ou might have a hard time finding a worse weapon for a spoear wielding paladin

[Morty]

I'm rather confused as to what could have possibly gone wrong if the book instead said that "Holy Avenger" is a status that can be applied to any weapon the GM deems appropriate for the campaign, and that applies certain traits to it.

[Tetrasodium]

I'm rather confused as to what could have possibly gone wrong if the book instead said that "Holy Avenger" is a status that can be applied to any weapon the GM deems appropriate for the campaign, and that applies certain traits to it.

or included more of the traits that could be applied to any weapon (flaming/axiomatic/chaotic/bursting/etc)

[Unoriginal]

To continue my previous analogy...there's nothing stopping a fantasy webcomic author from giving their angry barbarian a rapier, but that doesn't mean they should do that.

It doesn't mean they shouldn't either.

Or, a more pertinent point: have you considered that the rapier and the barbarian did not exist for each other?

If the party is questing to find the maul of Smash McBighammer, ancient king of the Dwarves, because its magic is known to have weakened the Demon Lord BBEG in the past, is the spear-using Paladin going to complain until the maul changes into a spear?




The books support anything in the books. You can say that the books support anything they don't explicitly prevent, but in my humble opinion that would be stupid, because (as you've noted) the books don't prevent anything. I could make a Holy Avenger railgun without any serious issue (just make it a ranged weapon with some appropriately high damage), but that doesn't mean I can say that it's supported by the books. The book doesn't say you can have a Holy Avenger mace, so how is it supported better than the Holy Avenger railgun?

It's not supported better. The book tell you that if you as a DM wish to have an Holy Avenger mace, you can, just as you can have an Holy Avenger railgun.

I'm glad we cleared that out.


I'm rather confused as to what could have possibly gone wrong if the book instead said that "Holy Avenger" is a status that can be applied to any weapon the GM deems appropriate for the campaign, and that applies certain traits to it.

Nothing would go wrong. It's a valid stylistic choice.

Just as the choice they did, aka making the Holy Avenger be a kind of sword (which still allows DEX-based, shield-and-sword, or two-handed fighting styles, by the by) is a valid one.

This whole thread has basically been:




Person 1: "The game book says his car is red, it's stupid. My character only uses blue cars. Why couldn't it be blue?"

Person 2: "Well, the book say it can changed to blue."

Person 1: "My DM doesn't want to have it be changed to blue, they say it must be red."

Person 2: "Well, that sucks. I don't think there's anything wrong with blue cars, but it's your DM's right to not allow them."

Person 3: "No, the DM must give the player a red car, so that it fits Person 1's character."

Person 2: "The DM must not do that unless they want to."

Person 3: "What's wrong with blue cars?"

Person 2: "Nothing, it's just not what the DM has decided."

Person 3: "It's stupid, the game book should say it's red."



Repeat ad nauseum.


I made the point earlier when I pointed out the explicitly valid options for magic spears in the dmg. If you need to pick a weapon that doesn't say it can fit on a spear by default in order to point out that you have no real options to hope for if the gm is unwilling to overrrule the magic items chapter's guidelines.. but since you brought up windvane & this thread was about paladin/holy avenger...

Y
ou might have a hard time finding a worse weapon for a spoear wielding paladin

And?

If you make a spear-using Paladin and the DM is not willing to homebrew magic items, you won't find a legendary spear aside from one that is bad for paladins.

So what?

You choose the build. Choices have consequences. If you want to play a character using a kind of weapon that doesn't have many powerful representatives in this DM's world, it's your choice. Accept the consequences or do a different choice.

[Specter]

As I always say: the rules should help the game, not hinder it. It's a sword probably because of Excalibur, but don't let it spoil your players' fun.

[Morty]

Nothing would go wrong. It's a valid stylistic choice.

Just as the choice they did, aka making the Holy Avenger be a kind of sword (which still allows DEX-based, shield-and-sword, or two-handed fighting styles, by the by) is a valid one.

This whole thread has basically been:


It's not a choice. It's discouraging some options for no reason, instead of opening them all up.

[Vorpal Crowbar]

This bugs me really hard.

Why is it always a sword? Would it be blasphemous to let the Holy Avenger be any melee instead of any sword?

One better, why are all the best weapons in the DMG are swords?

You know 4th edition was lacking in redeeming qualities; but one it got right was many of the weapons were "any slashing" or "any melee" why couldn't 5th edition get this right...?

VC

[Unoriginal]

or included more of the traits that could be applied to any weapon (flaming/axiomatic/chaotic/bursting/etc)


5e made the choice to move away from that. Magic items aren't stuff on people's shopping list, they are important, exceptional items.

Again, stylistic choices.



As I always say: the rules should help the game, not hinder it. It's a sword probably because of Excalibur, but don't let it spoil your players' fun.

Giving the players everything they want isn't helping the game either.

It's not a sword because the rules don't allow it. It's a sword because OP's DM decided so.

All the rules do is suggesting that the iconic holder of such an enchantment is a sword.

Again, we can think OP's DM is handling the situation in an unreasonable manner, and I sure do think that, but it doesn't change that how they handle this situation is their call.

[Tetrasodium]

Repeat ad nauseum.



And?

If you make a spear-using Paladin and the DM is not willing to homebrew magic items, you won't find a legendary spear aside from one that is bad for paladins.

So what?

You choose the build. Choices have consequences. If you want to play a character using a kind of weapon that doesn't have many powerful representatives in this DM's world, it's your choice. Accept the consequences or do a different choice.



In this case, the "choice" that is the problem is not the gm's nor the player's. The problematic choice is wotc's not fleshing out magic item creation rules because this is only one of the many many problems caused by the magic item's chapter being more "catalogue" than "guidance".

[Tetrasodium]

5e made the choice to move away from that. Magic items aren't stuff on people's shopping list, they are important, exceptional items.

Again, stylistic choices.


You ninja'd me while I was typing... looks like you found the choice causing problems like this & many more.

[Unoriginal]

In this case, the "choice" that is the problem is not the gm's nor the player's. The problematic choice is wotc's not fleshing out magic item creation rules because this is only one of the many many problems caused by the magic item's chapter being more "catalogue" than "guidance".

No, it's not.

There is no "problematic" choice from WotC here.


The magic item creation rules for this edition are fleshed out as much as they need to be for this edition. And the only "problems" caused by the magic item's chapter is that people want things their DMs don't want to give them, or DMs wanting to be dictated a list of precise rules in something the game designers decided to give a lot of freedom.

Again, stylistic choices.


You ninja'd me while I was typing... looks like you found the choice causing problems like this & many more.

No, it's not a choice causing problems. It's a choice that you don't like.

Big difference.

[Specter]

Giving the players everything they want isn't helping the game either.

It's not a sword because the rules don't allow it. It's a sword because OP's DM decided so.

All the rules do is suggesting that the iconic holder of such an enchantment is a sword.

Again, we can think OP's DM is handling the situation in an unreasonable manner, and I sure do think that, but it doesn't change that how they handle this situation is their call.

Yep. The advice I gave is geared towards DMs, but if you're a player, what you can do is say "what amI breaking in the aesthetics of your game if I have a Holy Avenger Axe?". If your DM doesn't care, or give a blanket answer, then you know it's not gonna change.

[Vorpal Crowbar]

No, it's not.

There is no "problematic" choice from WotC here.


The magic item creation rules for this edition are fleshed out as much as they need to be for this edition. And the only "problems" caused by the magic item's chapter is that people want things their DMs don't want to give them, or DMs wanting to be dictated a list of precise rules in something the game designers decided to give a lot of freedom.

Again, stylistic choices.


No, got to disagree -"stylistic"or not, it was poor design -

Because the new edition was redesigned to attract new players and new dm's. The majority of the DMs are not gonna stray into the grey zone of homebrew any time soon... So the players and DMs would be conflict -

"Sorry Player #1, I know you are polearm master - but if you want a cool weapon you can have a sword, a sword, or a sword..."

So much for the Spear of Destiny being a pike - guess they should change the game to "Dungeons & Longswords"


VC

[Unoriginal]

People seem to assume PCs are entitled to the magic items they want. It's not because you want a Belt of Giant Strength that you are going to find one.

[EvilAnagram]

There is no unique spears in the DMG.

The spear Windvane from Princes of the Apocalypse is both unique and Legendary, however.

Not sure what you are trying to prove, though. Or did you just want me to demonstrate my point?

It would be nice to have a true Adventurer's Vault. The only disappointing thing about Xanathar's Guide to Everything was the lack of magical items aside from Common items. It would have been nice for the Windvane and Blood Spear to get printed together, from a DM's POV.

[Vorpal Crowbar]

People seem to assume PCs are entitled to the magic items they want. It's not because you want a Belt of Giant Strength that you are going to find one.

Well as long as you are sword and shield wielder in 5th edition your're a happy camper- you always get want you want.

Sorry Simon Belmont - the weapon you seek is in another game system's castle..

[Unoriginal]

it was poor design -

As far as I'm concerne, it was great design.

It put the magic items back to their proper place. Items of power with a real place in the world. Not things that exist as feel-good pills for PCs.




Because the new edition was redesigned to attract new players and new dm's. The majority of the DMs are not gonna stray into the grey zone of homebrew any time soon... So the players and DMs would be conflict -

"Sorry Player #1, I know you are polearm master - but if you want a cool weapon you can have a sword, a sword, or a sword..."

"Sorry, Player #1, you choices have consequences."




So much for the Spear of Destiny being a pike - guess they should change the game to "Dungeons & Longswords"


Nice strawman, going form 0 to straight up absurd in a sentence.

[EvilAnagram]

Well as long as you are sword and shield wielder in 5th edition your're a happy camper- you always get want you want.

Sorry Simon Belmont - the weapon you seek is in another game system's castle..

If one of my players wanted an oddball weapon like a whip, you can bet I would homebrew a magical one, and the DMG provides guidance for anyone who wants to. I understand not statting out every possible weapon, especially super niche ones like the whip.

[Morty]

People seem to assume PCs are entitled to the magic items they want. It's not because you want a Belt of Giant Strength that you are going to find one.

If the Holy Avenger can be any weapon, the GM still decides what it is when the PCs run across it in some way. So that doesn't actually come into play at all.

[Unoriginal]

If the Holy Avenger can be any weapon, the GM still decides what it is when the PCs run across it in some way. So that doesn't actually come into play at all.

Yes, I'm glad we agree. It's purely a stylistic choice the 5e team went for, and it's up to the GM to decide what to do with the weapon regardless of it the book say it can be any weapon or if it says it can be swords only.

[Tetrasodium]

No, it's not.

There is no "problematic" choice from WotC here.


The magic item creation rules for this edition are fleshed out as much as they need to be for this edition. And the only "problems" caused by the magic item's chapter is that people want things their DMs don't want to give them, or DMs wanting to be dictated a list of precise rules in something the game designers decided to give a lot of freedom.

Again, stylistic choices.



No, it's not a choice causing problems. It's a choice that you don't like.

Big difference.


they halfassed it. a very small selection of effects can be applied to any weapon (+1/+2.+3/vicious), a similar small number of enchantmentscan be applied to any armor. A handful of weapons (ie swords) have a ridiculous number of weapons in the dmg while many other weapons have only a few or basically none. They halfassed it instead of going full recipe ingredients with lots of items like 3.5 or full unique items witha good selection of noteworthy magic items of each type weapon/armor.


As far as I'm concerne, it was great design.

It put the magic items back to their proper place. Items of power with a real place in the world. Not things that exist as feel-good pills for PCs.




"Sorry, Player #1, you choices have consequences."




Nice strawman, going form 0 to straight up absurd in a sentence.


Yes yes, we know.. wotc is incxapable of making a poor choice. if a gm wants to run a setting that needs stuff they didn't finish, that's the gm's fault. If a player has a character concept involving a type of weapon wotc forgot to make magic weapons, that's the player's fault. so on & so forth.

[Vorpal Crowbar]

As far as I'm concerne, it was great design.

It put the magic items back to their proper place. Items of power with a real place in the world. Not things that exist as feel-good pills for PCs.

God forbid a Player feels good.



"Sorry, Player #1, you choices have consequences." Yes, designers should build rewards for those choices - how hard would have been to type "any slashing" instead of "any sword" - Guess a Vorpal Greataxe is just too absurd, and needs to be homebrew. Meanwhile is it absolute essential to include the Iron Bands of Bilarro in the DMG...




Nice strawman, going form 0 to straight up absurd in a sentence. this was a joke.

[hamishspence]

In the Creating A Magic Item section of the DMG (page 284) the example given was Flail Holy Avengers, when the paladin player uses a flail :


The easiest way to invent a new magic item is to tweak an existing one. If a paladin uses a flail as her main weapon, you could change a holy avenger so that it's a flail instead of a sword. You can turn a ring of the ram into a wand, or a cloak of protection into a circlet of protection, all without altering the item's properties.

Other substitutions are equally easy.

The problem is, that it makes all such substitutions, effectively, homebrew - and many DMs will be uncomfortable with venturing into homebrew.

If they'd just dropped things like "Any Sword" from the item description - this "it's homebrew" issue wouldn't be present.

[Tanarii]

I'm rather confused as to what could have possibly gone wrong if the book instead said that "Holy Avenger" is a status that can be applied to any weapon the GM deems appropriate for the campaign, and that applies certain traits to it.


No, got to disagree -"stylistic"or not, it was poor design -

Because the new edition was redesigned to attract new players and new dm's. The majority of the DMs are not gonna stray into the grey zone of homebrew any time soon... So the players and DMs would be conflict -
Nothing would have gone wrong by deciding to have them be any type of weapon (or melee weapon, or whatever). But neither was it poor design not to. Especially when new players and new DMs are involved. Strong archetypes and evocative specific magic items are a good thing for new players and DMs and players. It's experienced players that want large amounts customization. Experienced DMs know they can customize whatever they want, but also of course that it's not always a good idea.

It was almost certainly a choice made for tradition and strong archetypes reasons, both in D&D and in general lore. And that's a strong theme in 5e, along with attracting both new and very traditional players, so overall it's hardly surprising they made this design choice. It supported their goals.

[Unoriginal]

they halfassed it. a very small selection of effects can be applied to any weapon (+1/+2.+3/vicious), a similar small number of enchantmentscan be applied to any armor. A handful of weapons (ie swords) have a ridiculous number of weapons in the dmg while many other weapons have only a few or basically none.


That's not half-assing it, it's doing something you don't like.



instead of going full recipe ingredients with lots of items like 3.5

The 3.5 magic item design would have been utter **** for 5e, and I'm glad they did no do it.



Yes, designers should build rewards for those choices

No they should not.

PCs are not entitled to specific magic items, let alone rewards for choosing builds based on magic items.


how hard would have been to type "any slashing" instead of "any sword" - Guess a Vorpal Greataxe is just too absurd, and needs to be homebrew. Meanwhile is it absolute essential to include the Iron Bands of Bilarro in the DMG...

How hard is it for a DM to write "any slashing" instead of "any sword"?



this was a joke.

I'm sure it was, that's why you kept using a strawman in your following post:


God forbid a Player feels good.



In the Creating A Magic Item section of the DMG (page 284) the example given was Flail Holy Avengers, when the paladin player uses a flail :

See, there is no issue with it. The game tells you you can do it.



The problem is, that it makes all such substitutions, effectively, homebrew - and many DMs will be uncomfortable with venturing into homebrew.

If they'd just dropped things like "Any Sword" from the item description - this "it's homebrew" issue wouldn't be present.

I don't want to sound rude, but if someone is too uncomfortable to change a single word to fit what they wish in a game that requires a lot of decision-making and ruling from the DM, they will probably be too uncomfortable to DM anything.

Being told that you can homebrew and should homebrew if you want X is only an issue if like OP's DM you don't want to do it and your players want you to.



Nothing would have gone wrong by deciding to have them be any type of weapon (or melee weapon, or whatever). But neither was it poor design not to. Especially when new players and new DMs are involved. Strong archetypes and evocative specific magic items are a good thing for new players and DMs and players. It's experienced players that want large amounts customization. Experienced DMs know they can customize whatever they want, but also of course that it's not always a good idea.

It was almost certainly a choice made for tradition and strong archetypes reasons, both in D&D and in general lore. And that's a strong theme in 5e, along with attracting both new and very traditional players, so overall it's hardly surprising they made this design choice. It supported their goals.

This, too.

[GreatWyrmGold]

It doesn't mean they shouldn't either.
Or, a more pertinent point: have you considered that the rapier and the barbarian did not exist for each other?
...Um...what?
First, you say that there's no reason not to give a rapier to a barbarian. Then you point out that rapiers and barbarians aren't meant for each other, which is my point. I have no idea what you're trying to say.


If the party is questing to find the maul of Smash McBighammer, ancient king of the Dwarves, because its magic is known to have weakened the Demon Lord BBEG in the past, is the spear-using Paladin going to complain until the maul changes into a spear?
Of course not. But why must the Demon Lord BBEG have been weakened by the weapon of the king of dwarves? (For that matter, why must that king's weapon have been a maul? Dwarves use weapons other than axes and hammers.)
The DM is the one who decides all factors of the plot. The DM decides what weapon the party is giving. They can decide to make that weapon a weapon that someone the party already uses.


It's not supported better. The book tell you that if you as a DM wish to have an Holy Avenger mace, you can, just as you can have an Holy Avenger railgun.
I'm glad we cleared that out.
...Not really. Now I'm going to ask what it even means when you say an option is supported, because it's sounding kinda meaningless.


This whole thread has basically been:
Person 1: "The game book says his car is red, it's stupid. My character only uses blue cars. Why couldn't it be blue?"
Person 2: "Well, the book say it can changed to blue."
Person 1: "My DM doesn't want to have it be changed to blue, they say it must be red."
Person 2: "Well, that sucks. I don't think there's anything wrong with blue cars, but it's your DM's right to not allow them."
Person 3: "No, the DM must give the player a red car, so that it fits Person 1's character."
Person 2: "The DM must not do that unless they want to."
Person 3: "What's wrong with blue cars?"
Person 2: "Nothing, it's just not what the DM has decided."
Person 3: "It's stupid, the game book should say it's red."Repeat ad nauseum.
That is a remarkable concentration of strawmen.


If you make a spear-using Paladin and the DM is not willing to homebrew magic items, you won't find a legendary spear aside from one that is bad for paladins.
So what?
You choose the build. Choices have consequences. If you want to play a character using a kind of weapon that doesn't have many powerful representatives in this DM's world, it's your choice. Accept the consequences or do a different choice.
That's not the sort of thing that's going to be obvious until well into the campaign. How many DMs are going to specifically say "I won't give out magic spears"? It's not something that such a DM is going to even be consciously aware of, so he's not going to be able to tell the player ahead of time. Similarly, players aren't going to consider potential weapon upgrades as a consequence of specializing in a given fighting style, because that's not a consideration in most games.
Sure, it's a consequence that came from a choice made by the player, but since it wasn't an informed choice, it can't be said to be the player's fault. You might as well blame someone playing Space Quest for dying when they press an unlabeled airlock button. That's not the player's fault, that's Sierra's fault.
(That probably didn't happen in any Space Quest game? It's just a random example.)


People seem to assume PCs are entitled to the magic items they want. It's not because you want a Belt of Giant Strength that you are going to find one.
Stop saying this. Nobody says that players should get literally any magic item they want. You seem to be the only person who seems to think anyone thinks this. It's ridiculously frustrating to see someone not even trying to understand someone else's position. The question isn't one of any/every magic item a player wants and one magic item the DM knows is appropriate, but between two magic items which are identical in every way except that one fits the character better.
While we're here, though...what's wrong with giving PCs items that they want? Obviously, I don't mean giving them literally every item they want; a typical PC's wishlist will contain several times more items than they could ever use. But when picking magic items to hand out, why not pick from among those the players want?


How hard is it for a DM to write "any slashing" instead of "any sword"?
Listen to this next sentence, and listen carefully.
If a DM can add houserules to fix a problem, that problem still exists.
I can't understand your viewpoint. I just can't. How does "you can homebrew a solution" mean there isn't a problem?
It reminds me of something I saw in a sig once:

Imagine if the combat system was as well thought out and explained as the skill system. You could cut it down to a page and a half, monsters would be about three sentences long. Best of all you don't have to remember any tables for conditions or detail the special abilities because you've got rulings instead of rules.
The points Telok was making are simple. First, if a game system doesn't include rules for something your game needs, it is insufficient for that game. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the presence for that sort of thing is the game designer's job. If they want a game where all important weapons are swords, that's fine, but they need to design that game and make that clear. They can't just design a game where every weapon type looks viable, but if you use spears or hammers or anything that isn't a sword, you'll be punished for it down the line. The only differences between that and the Space Quest example above are the severity of the consequences and that WotC wasn't trying to screw over the players.




they halfassed it. a very small selection of effects can be applied to any weapon (+1/+2.+3/vicious), a similar small number of enchantmentscan be applied to any armor. A handful of weapons (ie swords) have a ridiculous number of weapons in the dmg while many other weapons have only a few or basically none. They halfassed it instead of going full recipe ingredients with lots of items like 3.5 or full unique items witha good selection of noteworthy magic items of each type weapon/armor.
Exactly.
This is probably the biggest problem with D&D, every edition. Not specifically this, with magic items, but the inability to commit to any overarching design goals beyond "fantasy". They don't even have generic fantasy, because while they drew from (and shaped) the most generic fantasy templates around, they also have a wide variety of specific assumptions scattered about. For instance, the division between arcane and divine magic—many settings don't have such a division, either because they only have one of those or because both clerics and wizards use the same magic.
Applying it just here, just to this edition and this problem? There are too few generic build-a-weapon magic items to support a build-a-weapon model, and too few specific magic items to support a unique-magic-artifact model. Moreover, the narrow focus of those specific items clashes with the addition of weapon-specific fighting styles supported by various class abilities and feats.
Oh, sure, you can houserule everything to fix these problems. That's obvious. But if the DM needs to houserule in specific magic spears because there aren't any rules for them in the books, that is a tacit admission that there is a problem with the books.

[Trask]

I see both sides of this issue, and I think they stem from different roots.

On one hand, players want to be able to define their characters in their own terms with the weapons they favor and dont want to be "punished" for it by the game which may not cater to that. It seems arbitrary to say that I will not tailor ANY magic items around my party at all.

On the other, I think that there is a certain kind of esoteric virtue in going with randomness, letting the dice fall where they may and placing loot accordingly. If its a sword, its a sword, regardless of what the characters favor as their weapons of choice. It can lend a sort of (dare I say it?) verisimilitude to the world when it doesnt feel like every magic item the players find is tailored to them.

In the specific case of the Holy Avenger, as people have said before the weapon is iconic, its the Excalibur of D&D. Swords conjure an image in our minds automatically, of knightly virtue, honor, warrior culture etc. The holy avenger is a sword because thats what the weapon is supposed to represent, all of those knightly values from which we draw the inspiration for Paladins. But if you dont care about cultural motifs like that, then you wont really care, you just want it to be a hammer because you like hammers. Thats fine. But it does draw a line between two different camps I think, players who want the world to fit around their characters, and players who fit their characters around the world.

[EvilAnagram]

To be fair to Unoriginal and WotC, designing the system to encourage creative homebrew is not a flaw.

To be fair to everyone else, asking the creators to support the options they provide in the PHB with interesting choices out of the box is hardly asking for much.

[PhoenixPhyre]

First, I have no problem customizing items. The items in the book are explicitly only suggestions. Creating/changing items is a normal part of a DM's job in this edition (a change from previous editions).

But I object to the idea that items are a right, especially items fit for your character. That's the magic mart idea that 5e explicitly rejected.

[ZorroGames]

This conversation existed in 1973 though a Holy Avenger May not have been in the three booklets.

You win/steal/find magic items. Don’t like them don’t take them. I regret the Wand of Smiles but now it is mine and I deal with it or let it take up space in my backpack.

If you DM chooses to enable your story or cater to your whim it is his decision. If he doesn’t it is still his decision. Three columns of this whiny **** on both sides of this discussion is incredible. In a negative sense.

What was in previous editions is irrelevant to 5e.

[Tetrasodium]

First, I have no problem customizing items. The items in the book are explicitly only suggestions. Creating/changing items is a normal part of a DM's job in this edition (a change from previous editions).

But I object to the idea that items are a right, especially items fit for your character. That's the magic mart idea that 5e explicitly rejected.


While true, you miss a problem in order to make that argument.

An experienced gm who remembers 3.5 will have a good mental framework to comfortably take on that "job" as you put it.
A less experienced gm is going to have more difficulty taking on that "job"
A lot of newbie GM's start with AL where taking on that job is a "must NEVER" thing
Unless I'm missing it, there is nothing really saying that is one of the DM's Jobs. Sure dmg221 talks about modifying artifacts, dmg92 talks about customizing monsters, dmg135 talks about adjusting the GP value of magic items.
There doesn't seem to be anything telling a newer/less experienced gm that it's ok to make those sorts of substitutions for magic items & AL very clearly says they must not.

[EvilAnagram]

There doesn't seem to be anything telling a newer/less experienced gm that it's ok to make those sorts of substitutions for magic items & AL very clearly says they must not.
The Creating A Magic Item section of the DMG (page 284) explains exactly how to do that, using specific examples.

[Pex]

The DM can decide they want to give a paladin a Holy Avenger warhammer. There is no debate against that.

Just as the DM can decide they want to have a Holy Avenger sword because regardless of what a single individual has been using during their entire adventuring career the word doesn't have to bend to accommodate them, and they have every right to do so and no words said by their players or on a forum thread written by someone they've never met except maybe at a gaming convention or whatever can force them otherwise.




5e ought to do nothing. If a DM wants to change what an Holy Avenger is, they can, the books support it. If they don't want to change it, they can too, the books support it.

People can't blame 5e for offering guidelines but explicitly telling it's ok to not follow them when it's the DM who goes "I must follow the guidelines".

It's not about the rules at all. It's about being the DM. The player has been having his fun for the entire campaign using a warhammer. If the player really doesn't mind switching to a sword because it's a holy avenger, great. However, there's no reason to have the player make that choice. A paladin receiving a holy avenger is a defining moment. Having the holy avenger be the character's favorite weapon is the ultimate achievement. It's a memory to behold and remember. It's a completion of the character, an emotional satisfaction. It's the DM acknowledging the player's preference and indulging it for the sake of indulging it. At its most base it is the DM giving the player what we wants, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.


People seem to assume PCs are entitled to the magic items they want. It's not because you want a Belt of Giant Strength that you are going to find one.

That's not it at all. It's not a player demanding his character must have this magic item or badDMbad. The DM is providing for the magic item anyway. There's no reason for it not to be in a form a player would like.




Listen to this next sentence, and listen carefully.
If a DM can add houserules to fix a problem, that problem still exists.
I can't understand your viewpoint. I just can't. How does "you can homebrew a solution" mean there isn't a problem?
It reminds me of something I saw in a sig once:



That use to be commonly called the Oberoni Fallacy and people constantly bashed 3E because of it. It fell out of practice because it was a common defense against criticism of 5E in the first year of 5E's existence and how dare anyone criticize 5E. Now "DM adjudication" to mold 5E into whatever the DM feels like is the new replacement of sliced bread, so Oberoni Fallacy is now accepted and no longer a "fallacy" to many 5E fans who used to and still bash 3E.

[Trask]

I'm puzzled by people here who say that the DM shouldnt think of themselves as able to make a magic sword into a warhammer because the rules dont say they can. If we are basing these arguments of off what the rules dont say and think of them as scriptures rather than as rulebooks and guidelines for play then we are making a judgement that turns D&D into a tabletop computer game.

[Tetrasodium]

I'm puzzled by people here who say that the DM shouldnt think of themselves as able to make a magic sword into a warhammer because the rules dont say they can. If we are basing these arguments of off what the rules dont say and think of them as scriptures rather than as rulebooks and guidelines for play then we are making a judgement that turns D&D into a tabletop computer game.

it's more that AL tells players that they must not ever & new/inexperiemced dm's might not be too comfortable with it

[Trask]

it's more that AL tells players that they must not ever & new/inexperiemced dm's might not be too comfortable with it

I've never played AL, but if I had to guess I'd say they do that the create the most Classic™ Dungeons and Dragons experience possible. Where the swords are vorpal and the cloaks are of elvenkind. No deviations. Its not a terrible policy for organized play (but I've heard AL can be dry) and I can understand why they did it, but it shouldn't be how we think about the game in general.

[apepi]

Am a kobold and all magical bows are longbows.
:/

[Arkhios]

In the Creating A Magic Item section of the DMG (page 284) the example given was Flail Holy Avengers, when the paladin player uses a flail :


The easiest way to invent a new magic item is to tweak an existing one. If a paladin uses a flail as her main weapon, you could change a holy avenger so that it's a flail instead of a sword. You can turn a ring of the ram into a wand, or a cloak of protection into a circlet of protection, all without altering the item's properties.

Other substitutions are equally easy.

The problem is, that it makes all such substitutions, effectively, homebrew - and many DMs will be uncomfortable with venturing into homebrew.

If they'd just dropped things like "Any Sword" from the item description - this "it's homebrew" issue wouldn't be present.

This. Very much this. I'm 100% positive that my DM could create perfectly balanced homebrew if he dared to, but I feel he does indeed feel uncomfortable about the idea for some reason. Even if it's only changing a weapon's damage type from slashing to bludgeoning or piercing while other statistics would remain as they are (such as base damage 1d8 and versatile 1d10).
It's not that he would lack experience as a DM. He's got several times more years as a DM under his belt than I have, IIRC from late 2nd/early 3rd editions to present day.

FWIW, I'm not assuming I can have every magic item I want, but I admit it would feel very annoying if my character, who prefers a warhammer over longsword, would be shoehorned into using a sword holy avenger just because a sword is the standard because of reasons. (I know, I get it: it's iconic, traditional, supported by medieval history/romanticized literature etc.)

It's just that if I were to be given a quest (as is the case, traditionally) to find a holy avenger and I knew beforehand it would be a sword and not a warhammer, I might not go on to take that quest at all. But if I knew it would be a warhammer, hell yes I would.

It's a matter of whether the effort is worth it, if the reward isn't what you'd prefer it to be. And then there's that "minor" detail, that it's kind of assumed that every paladin would at some point of his career achieve to obtain a holy avenger (which tends to involve a special quest). Why would you want a sword if you've used a warhammer for the majority of your adventuring career and your character had grown into that specific image, only to be crushed just because of inflexible presumptions that a "true" paladin uses a sword.

[Mith]

Am a kobold and all magical bows are longbows.
:/

Of course they are, because the multiverse is out to screw kobolds.

In time, we will strike them down...soon...

[ProsecutorGodot]

I don't remember where I read this idea, but I really liked it and would likely use it in my campaigns.

Essentially, Holy Avengers are created through the Paladin's force of will and righteousness. The type of weapon didn't matter but when a Paladin was a true personification of goodness in the face of evil their weapon would start to carry attributes of a Holy Avenger or possibly develop such attributes after they're dead for up and coming Paladins to literally carry their will into battle.

My opinion on iconic near artifact level weapons is that a baseline should be set to establish the sense of "grandness" that comes with such an item. I think it's completely fine for a Holy Avenger to be expected to be a sword but it really doesn't have to be.

[Tetrasodium]

I've never played AL, but if I had to guess I'd say they do that the create the most Classic™ Dungeons and Dragons experience possible. Where the swords are vorpal and the cloaks are of elvenkind. No deviations. Its not a terrible policy for organized play (but I've heard AL can be dry) and I can understand why they did it, but it shouldn't be how we think about the game in general.

not quite... it's more shackles on the dm to run modules almost exactly as written & some bookkeeping for players to make their characters portable to other games. It looks like they loosened it still this ("]slightly[/url]... but there is [url="https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/DDADVL_FAQv3.pdf).


Do I Roll for Random Magic Items?
Some adventures direct you to determine magic items randomly. For Storm King’s Thunder and those seasons that follow, we have decided to permit this. However, the guidance does not apply for previous seasons’s adventures (specifically Out ofthe Abyss and Curse of Strahd).
For these adventures prior to Storm King’sThunder, the previous guidance still applies whendirected to determine treasure randomly.

It's very easy to see how a newer gm who got their start as a player or gm with AL might be under the impression that making changes to magic items is a veryBadIdea. changing the adventure is explicitly frowned upon as well but there are very minimal things allowed.

[Arkhios]

I think it's completely fine for a Holy Avenger to be expected to be a sword but it really doesn't have to be.

Agreed. It's completely fine for it to be a sword, but does it really have to be? Imho, it shouldn't.

[Tanarii]

That use to be commonly called the Oberoni Fallacy and people constantly bashed 3E because of it. It fell out of practice because it was a common defense against criticism of 5E in the first year of 5E's existence and how dare anyone criticize 5E. Now "DM adjudication" to mold 5E into whatever the DM feels like is the new replacement of sliced bread, so Oberoni Fallacy is now accepted and no longer a "fallacy" to many 5E fans who used to and still bash 3E.
It fell out of use because the Oberoni Fallacy is a fallacious Fallacy. (Yes, them's fighting words. :smallbiggrin: )

But in this specific case, the Oberoni Fallacy wouldn't apply anyway. DMG content isn't a rule. DMs changing it aren't using a house rule. They are ignoring suggestions.

Of course, that's not always a good thing.

[Astofel]

A lot of people seem to be saying that the DM is perfectly within their rights to not provide the PCs with magic items suited to their builds. Objectively, that is a true statement.
But would you actually do this?
If you're running a game for, say, a wizard, a rogue, a monk, and a druid, and they've just earned a treasure from the king's armory for completing a quest for him, would you really have him give them a +1 greatsword that none of them can use? Or maybe one of them can use it, but has reasons not to, like a fighter who took the protection or dueling fighting style.

If I was playing a halberd-user because I thought halberds were cool and I liked the image of someone who fights with a halberd, I'd be mighty ticked if my DM left me in the dust, giving all my party members flametongue daggers and magic longswords, and using my weapon choice as an excuse. "Oh, I'm sorry, but halberds are an uncommon weapon choice, so the ancients who made all this magic gear didn't make any halberds, so sorry, but here's another magic longsword if you want it." Buddy, you're the DM, you control the entire world, if there aren't any magic halberds it's purely because you don't want me to have one for some reason.

I don't expect a Belt of Storm Giant Strength to fall out of the sky into my lap simply because it'd be good for my character to have one, but this is a fantasy game and I think it's reasonable to expect a DM to allow me to fulfill the fantasy of the character that exists in my head.

[Unoriginal]

This. Very much this. I'm 100% positive that my DM could create perfectly balanced homebrew if he dared to, but I feel he does indeed feel uncomfortable about the idea for some reason. Even if it's only changing a weapon's damage type from slashing to bludgeoning or piercing while other statistics would remain as they are (such as base damage 1d8 and versatile 1d10).
It's not that he would lack experience as a DM. He's got several times more years as a DM under his belt than I have, IIRC from late 2nd/early 3rd editions to present day.

FWIW, I'm not assuming I can have every magic item I want, but I admit it would feel very annoying if my character, who prefers a warhammer over longsword, would be shoehorned into using a sword holy avenger just because a sword is the standard because of reasons. (I know, I get it: it's iconic, traditional, supported by medieval history/romanticized literature etc.)

It's just that if I were to be given a quest (as is the case, traditionally) to find a holy avenger and I knew beforehand it would be a sword and not a warhammer, I might not go on to take that quest at all. But if I knew it would be a warhammer, hell yes I would.

It's a matter of whether the effort is worth it, if the reward isn't what you'd prefer it to be. And then there's that "minor" detail, that it's kind of assumed that every paladin would at some point of his career achieve to obtain a holy avenger (which tends to involve a special quest). Why would you want a sword if you've used a warhammer for the majority of your adventuring career and your character had grown into that specific image, only to be crushed just because of inflexible presumptions that a "true" paladin uses a sword.


Have you considered you might not get an Holy Avenger at all?



And then there's that "minor" detail, that it's kind of assumed that every paladin would at some point of his career achieve to obtain a holy avenger (which tends to involve a special quest).

No, that is not an assumption in 5e, and it will never be.

In fact, the assumption is that most Paladins will never even be in the presence of an Holy Avenger. It's legendarily rare.

[Obscuraphile]

I thought it was an orbital nuke. Guess I was wrong...

What ever it was the scabbard was the real artifact.

[halarin]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second here and offer a possible reason for you DM not wanting to deviate from the rules as written. One of the reasons why some people stick strictly to the rules is that it is an easy and normally accepted way to prevent every player at the table from begging for rules that greatly benefit their character without thought for how those changes affect the rest of the players or the DM. What you are asking for is minor and not unreasonable. However, your DM may consider it to be opening Pandora's Box.

It's definitely a lot easier to just say, "we are sticking to the rules as written" than it is to say, "no, you can't reflavor your crossbow as a rifle even though I let the holy avenger be changed into a warhammer."

[Unoriginal]

A lot of people seem to be saying that the DM is perfectly within their rights to not provide the PCs with magic items suited to their builds. Objectively, that is a true statement.
But would you actually do this?

I would, and I did.



If you're running a game for, say, a wizard, a rogue, a monk, and a druid, and they've just earned a treasure from the king's armory for completing a quest for him, would you really have him give them a +1 greatsword that none of them can use? Or maybe one of them can use it, but has reasons not to, like a fighter who took the protection or dueling fighting style.

That's a different debate. A king could prepare a suitable reward for the group, there is no reason they give a specific sword if it's useless for said group.

That's not the same as doing a quest for a specific magic item (the reward is set in advance), the equipment the enemy is using/has in their loot pile (the reward exists not to quater to the players' wishes, it's what the bad guy managed to acquire) or reward form people of lesser means (a king might give you a gold pile if you don't want the magic sword, a small community's mayor might only have a Moon-Touched sword to offer).



If I was playing a halberd-user because I thought halberds were cool and I liked the image of someone who fights with a halberd, I'd be mighty ticked if my DM left me in the dust, giving all my party members flametongue daggers and magic longswords, and using my weapon choice as an excuse. "Oh, I'm sorry, but halberds are an uncommon weapon choice, so the ancients who made all this magic gear didn't make any halberds, so sorry, but here's another magic longsword if you want it."

That's be bad DMing. Good DMing would be "Oh, I'm sorry, but halberds are an uncommon weapon choice, but here is that rumor about this magic halberd that was used by Warchief Brub to kill the Devil Lonagus. The Warchief's tomb probably holds other treasures, as well..."

Or: "Oh, I'm sorry, but halberds are an uncommon weapon choice. I told you magical halberds won't be common when you started, and you said it was fine."



Buddy, you're the DM, you control the entire world, if there aren't any magic halberds it's purely because you don't want me to have one for some reason.

And the reason might be that in this DM's world polearms are less often enchanted because it's not a common type of weapon for people who have the means to have magic items. Or any justification the DM feels is worth it.



I don't expect a Belt of Storm Giant Strength to fall out of the sky into my lap simply because it'd be good for my character to have one, but this is a fantasy game and I think it's reasonable to expect a DM to allow me to fulfill the fantasy of the character that exists in my head.

So you don't expect a Belt of Storm Giant Strength to fall out of the sky, but if it's part of the fulfilling of your fantasy of the character that exists in your head you expect to get the Belt?



What ever it was the scabbard was the real artifact.

True, though it depends of the myth.

Point is, when King Arthur killed the Giant of Mount Saint Michel, he didn't complain that the giant's metal club was too big for him or that the giant's cape was itchy and gross. He accepted them as the mighty trophies they were.

[Astofel]

-snip-
So you don't expect a Belt of Storm Giant Strength to fall out of the sky, but if it's part of the fulfilling of your fantasy of the character that exists in your head you expect to get the Belt?


I guess I should have said 'within reason'. Obviously a player who uses that as an excuse is gaming the system in an attempt to get more power. If a player's concept was 'my character's goal is to become the physically strongest person there is', I might have a belt of giant strength or two drop during the campaign. The minimum I'd expect from a DM who's running a game with the default 5e assumptions for magic items would be to have a +1 (or equivalent) version of my weapon of choice, and to have it by 9th-10th level, but that's just me.

Everything else you've said is pretty reasonable, I guess it just comes down to a difference in DMing style. I generally like to hand out magic items that go well with a PC's build, or oddball items like a Bag of Tricks that can be used by anyone. Imo trying to be realistic by making certain magic weapons less available is ultimately less fun for those who want to use them, so I just allow them to find the things that make them happy. It's a game after all, we're all just here for a good time.

[Unoriginal]

Well IMO I find it more fun when the PCs are people in the world rather than having the world exists for the PCs.

If one of my player made a character whose concept is "want to become the physicaly strongest person there is", I would probably include an epic duel/wrestling match a la Kratos vs the Stranger against another pretender to the title, or even the actual holder, with the Belt or another appropriate reward being given to the PC in case of victory.

Heck, the former Physically Strongest Person There Is could even go "you're good, but there are many people in the world you can't defeat yet", then snap their fingers and grant the PC a Boon giving them the power to use grapple and shove even on Huge or bigger opponents.


In any case, I apologise for my excessive belligerence. It was uncalled for.

[Astofel]

Well IMO I find it more fun when the PCs are people in the world rather than having the world exists for the PCs.

If one of my player made a character whose concept is "want to become the physicaly strongest person there is", I would probably include an epic duel/wrestling match a la Kratos vs the Stranger against another pretender to the title, or even the actual holder, with the Belt or another appropriate reward being given to the PC in case of victory.

Heck, the former Physically Strongest Person There Is could even go "you're good, but there are many people in the world you can't defeat yet", then snap their fingers and grant the PC a Boon giving them the power to use grapple and shove even on Huge or bigger opponents.


In any case, I apologise for my excessive belligerence. It was uncalled for.

Hey, all's well that ends well. I actually quite like that wrestling match idea and might just steal it for my own personal use later down the road. As you describe it, I definitely fall in the "the world (or at least the campaign) is for the PCs" camp. The 'story' that's being told is ultimately about them, at least for me, but I can see the appeal of a world that exists on its own terms too.

[Pex]

It fell out of use because the Oberoni Fallacy is a fallacious Fallacy. (Yes, them's fighting words. :smallbiggrin: )

But in this specific case, the Oberoni Fallacy wouldn't apply anyway. DMG content isn't a rule. DMs changing it aren't using a house rule. They are ignoring suggestions.

Of course, that's not always a good thing.

How convenient once it started to be used against 5E.

[Unoriginal]

How convenient once it started to be used against 5E.

Yes, how convenient that something that was never a problem for either 3.X or 5e was finally recognized as not a problem once 5e came around.

It's almost as if the most vocal part of the 3.X audience was composed of people screaming loudly about RAW, exact-word abuses, must-have-rules-for-everything-ism, theorycrafting and white-room optimization as a way to have as much control over the game as possible and shunning deviations from those things as badwrongfun, while 5e deliberately distanced itself from that and reminded everyone it was ok to use RPG books as suggestion and guidelines rather than as absolute hard rules.

[Sigreid]

This. Very much this. I'm 100% positive that my DM could create perfectly balanced homebrew if he dared to, but I feel he does indeed feel uncomfortable about the idea for some reason. Even if it's only changing a weapon's damage type from slashing to bludgeoning or piercing while other statistics would remain as they are (such as base damage 1d8 and versatile 1d10).
It's not that he would lack experience as a DM. He's got several times more years as a DM under his belt than I have, IIRC from late 2nd/early 3rd editions to present day.

FWIW, I'm not assuming I can have every magic item I want, but I admit it would feel very annoying if my character, who prefers a warhammer over longsword, would be shoehorned into using a sword holy avenger just because a sword is the standard because of reasons. (I know, I get it: it's iconic, traditional, supported by medieval history/romanticized literature etc.)

It's just that if I were to be given a quest (as is the case, traditionally) to find a holy avenger and I knew beforehand it would be a sword and not a warhammer, I might not go on to take that quest at all. But if I knew it would be a warhammer, hell yes I would.

It's a matter of whether the effort is worth it, if the reward isn't what you'd prefer it to be. And then there's that "minor" detail, that it's kind of assumed that every paladin would at some point of his career achieve to obtain a holy avenger (which tends to involve a special quest). Why would you want a sword if you've used a warhammer for the majority of your adventuring career and your character had grown into that specific image, only to be crushed just because of inflexible presumptions that a "true" paladin uses a sword.

It could simply be that if he does it for one character he will be obliged to do similar with all characters and simply doesn't want to get into either that or being seen as playing favorites.

This whole thread is kind of hilarious to me though.

[Tanarii]

How convenient once it started to be used against 5E.'tos a fair cop. I'm willing to bet in the days of the WoTC 3e forums, I'd find posts by myself reflecting an acceptance of the Oberani fallacy. Because in that time, and in my mindset at the time, it seemed necessary.

Otoh an unchanging mind that can't adapt to see the sense in the light of new evidence is one locked in the past. The Oberoni fallacy was a reflection of the rejection of "Roleplaying" is Greater than RAW Elitism and the new Worship at the Altar of RAW thinking at the time. And of course, the change from a tangled mess of rules to a streamlined set of rules which later became tangled. (The latter has happened for every edition published so far btw.)

5e has shown that the Oberoni Fallacy has moved from a necessary fallacy in its time to a now unnecessary one. Flexible cohesive rules + DM rulings > strictly bound cohesive RAW > a lack of cohesive rules entirely, and make "house rules" less necessary than ever before. There is structure to the adjudication process (which was missing before 3e), but also less broken RAW interactions to deal with in the first place. And flexibility for the DM to fix it in a fair way that most players understand is built right into the system.

That said, in this particular case, it doesn't apply. Changing how a DMG magic item works is not a "house rule" in the sense the Oberoni Fallacy applies.

[Pex]

'tos a fair cop. I'm willing to bet in the days of the WoTC 3e forums, I'd find posts by myself reflecting an acceptance of the Oberani fallacy. Because in that time, and in my mindset at the time, it seemed necessary.

Otoh an unchanging mind that can't adapt to see the sense in the light of new evidence is one locked in the past. The Oberoni fallacy was a reflection of the rejection of "Roleplaying" is Greater than RAW Elitism and the new Worship at the Altar of RAW thinking at the time. And of course, the change from a tangled mess of rules to a streamlined set of rules which later became tangled. (The latter has happened for every edition published so far btw.)

5e has shown that the Oberoni Fallacy has moved from a necessary fallacy in its time to a now unnecessary one. Flexible cohesive rules + DM rulings > strictly bound cohesive RAW > a lack of cohesive rules entirely, and make "house rules" less necessary than ever before. There is structure to the adjudication process (which was missing before 3e), but also less broken RAW interactions to deal with in the first place. And flexibility for the DM to fix it in a fair way that most players understand is built right into the system.

That said, in this particular case, it doesn't apply. Changing how a DMG magic item works is not a "house rule" in the sense the Oberoni Fallacy applies.

The 3E DM was never bound by its rules. He always could be as fluid as he wanted to be. Just for an example, if he didn't want to permit a prestige class or multiclassing prestige classes because in his opinion it makes for too powerful characters or breaks verisimilitude he was allowed to, but then the 3E bashers would complain that's proof prestige classes were too powerful or gimmicky and why 3E sucks, and then they get on the case of specific prestige classes like Incantatrix, Planar Shephard, and Shining Blade of Heironeous as a contrast, and then move on to Tiers as if it was self-evident, so the DM using his judgment is not a defense. That was the fallacy.

I'm calling it out as hypocrisy now that the 5E DM has to make his own judgment on things is suddenly an ok thing to be praised as a feature of 5E. The 5E DM's adjudication may be for different things than the 3E DM, but he still has to make them because 5E has its own flaws however different they are than 3E's. However, in that first year of 5E people were yelled at, figuratively speaking, for the audacity of criticizing 5E. That doesn't happen now so regularly, but once in a while it crops up. It was in that first year all of a sudden Oberoni Fallacy was no longer accepted as criticism because it was a legitimate critique of 5E, but 5E fans would not stand for reading of any disparaging remarks.

Anyway, enough of this derailment.

The holy avenger can be any weapon type the DM wants, and if he wants to make it in a form a paladin player likes there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

[JackPhoenix]

If a player's concept was 'my character's goal is to become the physically strongest person there is', I might have a belt of giant strength or two drop during the campaign. The minimum I'd expect from a DM who's running a game with the default 5e assumptions for magic items would be to have a +1 (or equivalent) version of my weapon of choice, and to have it by 9th-10th level, but that's just me.

If player's concept was "My character wants to become the strongest person there is", handling him a belt is lazy and terrible solution. The character won't be the strongest person, he'll be some loser with magic item, and if he takes the item off, or it gets stolen, or ends up in antimagic field, he's back to being just a loser. In fact, the belt would be counterproductive to the goal, because the player won't have the motivation to grow his character's natural strength through ASIs or other means. There ways to become the strongest person around... like starting with good strength, and going Barbarian 20, and perhaps searching for tomes or other ways to improve the character's strength... but "I have a magic item" is a different concept. Not always bad (Frodo had the Ring, Tony Stark has his power armor), but the concept should include more than that.

[Unoriginal]

The 3E DM was never bound by its rules.

Then why are you always advocating for "fixed DC" 3.X-style tables that would supposedly limit tyrannical DMs?


the 3E bashers would complain that's proof prestige classes were too powerful or gimmicky and why 3E sucks, and then they get on the case of specific prestige classes like Incantatrix, Planar Shephard, and Shining Blade of Heironeous as a contrast, and then move on to Tiers as if it was self-evident, so the DM using his judgment is not a defense. That was the fallacy.

Bashing the game because the DM made a decision is fallacious (which, incidentally, a lot of people have been doing in this thread). But "X part of the game does not work because Y" being used as criticism for the game is fair, as long as it's accurate, regardless of if we're talking about 3.X or 5e.

I've personally not seen any part of 5e that didn't work (aside from some shenanigans with Wish, perhaps). Some parts are flawed, to be sure, but "all the rules work and you can change what you want if you'd prefer something different" is world of difference from "you have to ban several prestige classes/feats/books/build or your game will be ruined".

If the 5e writers ever do something as badly designed as, say, the Truenamer, I would call them out on it, even if a DM can just decide to not include it in their game, because it'd be the 5e writers messing up. I would definitively have said they ****ed up if they had published the Lore Wizard as it was in the UA, for example.



I'm calling it out as hypocrisy now that the 5E DM has to make his own judgment on things is suddenly an ok thing to be praised as a feature of 5E. The 5E DM's adjudication may be for different things than the 3E DM, but he still has to make them because 5E has its own flaws however different they are than 3E's.

5e has "if you don't like it, change it" written in its DNA. It wouldn't change if a part of 5e is horrendously written or unclear, it would be horrendously written or unclear.

It's just that the system is built robustly enough that you can effortlessly change that kind of small parts without it breaking down.

So no, no hypocrisy here, unless someone start claiming that it's ok to do it in 5e but that it's badwrong to do it in 3.X. There are more than one group of people to bash a work, and I doubt those who disliked 3.X because of what you said enjoy 5e. They're probably bashing it too.



Oberoni Fallacy was no longer accepted as criticism because it was a legitimate critique of 5E

You have not demonstrated the validity of this claim.



The holy avenger can be any weapon type the DM wants, and if he wants to make it in a form a paladin player likes there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Indeed, you're 100% right. And if the DM does not want to do it, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that either.

And if the DM does not want to include a Holy Avenger at all, there is still absolutely nothing wrong with that.


If player's concept was "My character wants to become the strongest person there is", handling him a belt is lazy and terrible solution. The character won't be the strongest person, he'll be some loser with magic item, and if he takes the item off, or it gets stolen, or ends up in antimagic field, he's back to being just a loser. In fact, the belt would be counterproductive to the goal, because the player won't have the motivation to grow his character's natural strength through ASIs or other means. There ways to become the strongest person around... like starting with good strength, and going Barbarian 20, and perhaps searching for tomes or other ways to improve the character's strength... but "I have a magic item" is a different concept. Not always bad (Frodo had the Ring, Tony Stark has his power armor), but the concept should include more than that.

This is true, too.

Though dueling/wrestling someone who relies on the Belt to be ultra-strong could be very interesting from a symbolism and story standpoint, as it'd represent the PC surpassing the need for such an item.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My issue with invoking Oberoni here is that it smuggles in that which it is attempting to prove--that the presence (or absence) of such things as Holy Avenger polearms is broken.

Oberoni is only valid when applied to things that are absolutely broken, as in non-functional, self-contradictory, completely out-of-scale with the rest, or otherwise unplayable as written. The following is something to which Oberoni applies--

Consider a class with the following feature:

Death to fiends: Any fiend struck by an attack from a character with this feature dies instantly. A character with this feature cannot attack fiends.

As such, this feature is broken. It is self-nullifying. So even if you fix it with a house-rule, it's still broken as written.

The existence of various types of Holy Avengers is no where near this scale--it's a dispute about taste and competing values, not about functionality. Invoking Oberoni here is an attempt to assume the conclusion.

Furthermore, I don't believe that there are any rules in 5e to which Oberoni really applies. In part because 5e's rules are not intended to be read from a RAW-first, binding-on-everyone standpoint (unlike earlier editions). 5e's rules are explicitly guidelines for DMs and players, with the expectation that every table will differ. Another part is that while there are things that are rough, unpolished, or sub-optimal, there are no (or very few) mechanics that just don't work as stated.

[Arkhios]

Have you considered you might not get an Holy Avenger at all?

For the sake of argument, my DM has hinted towards that I might be getting a Holy Avenger, so there's that. No details as to what kind would it be, but I am assuming that it's probably a sword, based on my past experience with this DM and how he runs the game (which is almost exactly to the letter by RAW). And, no. I really don't have a choice to find a DM that might be more lenient, because apart from myself, he is the only one of us willing to run 5th edition, and myself becoming the DM because of this issue won't solve anything (for me as the player of a paladin). The circles are a lot smaller here in Finland than they are in 'Murica.

Do note, that while I might disagree with certain things my DM does, and that I am vocally against the idea of following DMG's suggestions blindly, I'm not going to throw a fit at the table if I end up having a sword holy avenger instead of what I would prefer more. I'm just questioning the rationale.

[GlenSmash!]

I know, but it's boring to just stick to those clichéd fantasies.

Where's the fun playing paladin that's essentially a blue-print copy of any knight of the round table (or just about every other paladin ever made)? Use some imagination and make your own hero. Isn't that the whole point? Why do we have to play umpteenth version of Sir(s) Galahad (or Lancelot or what-have-you) when we play a paladin?

This is a valid point of view, but I'd like to counter that a lot of new players and DMs have never played a rip off of the knight of the round table before and one of them wanting to do that with their first Paladin is perfectly valid too.

The DMG playing up to the archetypes in order to help inspire the newbies, but at the cost of a veteren gamer like yourself may or may not have been a conscious design decision by the 5e devs. Regardless I think it is a valid one.

Newbies need more help that non-newbies after all.

[Astofel]

If player's concept was "My character wants to become the strongest person there is", handling him a belt is lazy and terrible solution. The character won't be the strongest person, he'll be some loser with magic item, and if he takes the item off, or it gets stolen, or ends up in antimagic field, he's back to being just a loser. In fact, the belt would be counterproductive to the goal, because the player won't have the motivation to grow his character's natural strength through ASIs or other means. There ways to become the strongest person around... like starting with good strength, and going Barbarian 20, and perhaps searching for tomes or other ways to improve the character's strength... but "I have a magic item" is a different concept. Not always bad (Frodo had the Ring, Tony Stark has his power armor), but the concept should include more than that.

I agree with you for the most part, but I think it depends on the character. Some might view 'the strongest' as needing nothing other than themselves to be strong and would refuse a Belt, others might see it differently. Even in the case of the latter, a Belt would be something that the character has to earn by showcasing their current strength, not something they just so happen to find in a dusty ruin somewhere. Or maybe having a Belt of Storm Giant Strength appear before a character who wants to be strong by themselves would provide an interesting temptation, although it might be difficult to ensure it doesn't end up in the hands of one of the other party members, who'd then overshadow the strength-seeker.

[Unoriginal]

I agree with you for the most part, but I think it depends on the character. Some might view 'the strongest' as needing nothing other than themselves to be strong and would refuse a Belt, others might see it differently. Even in the case of the latter, a Belt would be something that the character has to earn by showcasing their current strength, not something they just so happen to find in a dusty ruin somewhere. Or maybe having a Belt of Storm Giant Strength appear before a character who wants to be strong by themselves would provide an interesting temptation, although it might be difficult to ensure it doesn't end up in the hands of one of the other party members, who'd then overshadow the strength-seeker.

Could have a quest that ends with the PC getting a beyond-humanoid-limit strength through a Boon.

[KorvinStarmast]

Why is it always a sword? The genre is swords and sorcery.

Would it be blasphemous to let the Holy Avenger be any melee instead of any sword?
No. A mace/morning star/holy water sprinkler/war hammer would all be appropriate holy weapons. And given what the Swiss Guard uses in their ceremonial get up, why not a halberd? :smallbiggrin:

[furby076]

5e made the choice to move away from that. Magic items aren't stuff on people's shopping list, they are important, exceptional items.

Again, stylistic choices.

Nah, you are wrong here on 3 counts 1) while magic items aren't on your shopping list, they are on other peoples shopping list. If dnd didn't want any magic items, they should have just omitted them. 2) having variety of options does not equate to quantity nor a removal of importance or exceptionality. 3) Stylistic choices...ok, how does it not make sense for an ancients paladin (aka nature) to wield a holy avenger quarterstaff, or a conquest paladin to wield a holy avenger hell flail, etc? That's stylistic choice


Giving the players everything they want isn't helping the game either.

Says who? Do you have empirical evidence of this assertion? Giving the player their holy avenger XYZ makes them happy, and that makes the game better. It doesn't mean the player can walk up to the nearest convenience store and buy one or ten, it just means when they finish their quest for one, it actually works with the player concept


It's not a sword because the rules don't allow it. It's a sword because OP's DM decided so.

Its a sword because the rules don't stipulate "feel free to substitute different weapon types" and the OPs DM is a stickler for RAW. If the PHB or DMGwould have said that, the DM would not be able to use that as a reason, and according to the OP, that IS the reason


All the rules do is suggesting that the iconic holder of such an enchantment is a sword.


Wrong, the rules state the holy avenger IS a sword and nothing else. Which means anything beyond that is homebrew. Now if JC would clarify that substitutions are RAI, then it is no longer homebrew



Again, we can think OP's DM is handling the situation in an unreasonable manner, and I sure do think that, but it doesn't change that how they handle this situation is their call.

nah dude. It's not about reasonable or unreasonable, it's about many players and DMs are sticklers for RAW -- which is perfectly OK, and these silly issues pop up. I never played AL before, but I assume this means if a player wants to ever have his paladin use a holy avenger, then he will need to use a longsword holy avenger.

[furby076]

As far as I'm concerne, it was great design.

It put the magic items back to their proper place. Items of power with a real place in the world. Not things that exist as feel-good pills for PCs.
.

Dude, this is a GAME! It's primary objective is literally to make the participants feel good. Who the heck wants to invest their spare time in doing something that makes them feel miserable (suicidals, emo and goths need not answer),

Magic items their proper place? Come on, that's nonsense if I ever saw it written. Magic items are things that are fantastical and have no "proper place" - they are totally out of the realm of proper. And dont use the phrase "real place in the world", since we are talking about a game of imagination that has almost no basis in reality of this world

[furby076]

Yes, I'm glad we agree. It's purely a stylistic choice the 5e team went for, and it's up to the GM to decide what to do with the weapon regardless of it the book say it can be any weapon or if it says it can be swords only.

Except, if the rules do not state it's up to the GM to decide, then GMs who are sticklers to the rules (and I presume AL games as well) will never veer away from the rules as written. So, sword or bust..... Guess, WOTC style is all bout the long sword

[furby076]

I see both sides of this issue, and I think they stem from different roots.

On one hand, players want to be able to define their characters in their own terms with the weapons they favor and dont want to be "punished" for it by the game which may not cater to that. It seems arbitrary to say that I will not tailor ANY magic items around my party at all.

It's not just that. Many players don't know whats available to them in the first place. I have met quite a few DMs who have made specific books/sections off limits, including magic items lists. So if a player wants a holy avenger spear, and the DM is willing to one day let the player have a holy avenger...but the DM is a stickler for the rules....well, level 18 paladin can enjoy his holy avenger longsword, while he is using PAM....


On the other, I think that there is a certain kind of esoteric virtue in going with randomness, letting the dice fall where they may and placing loot accordingly. If its a sword, its a sword, regardless of what the characters favor as their weapons of choice. It can lend a sort of (dare I say it?) verisimilitude to the world when it doesnt feel like every magic item the players find is tailored to them.

Not sure this is a random generator issue, so much that the tables do not have support for applying different weapons types. To get to this they could have had a table that says "base weapon type" roll d12, then "magic enhancement" roll d100, and then "quantity of magic enhancements" roll d4. It would be very annoying to play in that game, but at least holy avenger wasn't locked into a longsword.


In the specific case of the Holy Avenger, as people have said before the weapon is iconic, its the Excalibur of D&D. Swords conjure an image in our minds automatically, of knightly virtue, honor, warrior culture etc. The holy avenger is a sword because thats what the weapon is supposed to represent, all of those knightly values from which we draw the inspiration for Paladins. But if you dont care about cultural motifs like that, then you wont really care, you just want it to be a hammer because you like hammers. Thats fine. But it does draw a line between two different camps I think, players who want the world to fit around their characters, and players who fit their characters around the world.

Excalibur is a Defender sword in all previous DND games. It's also, per some legend books, known to be a sword where the wielder could not be felled...which leans towards the defending part.

To me it's not about the motif but homebrew vs RAW/RAI. Currently, a greatsword holy avenger is homebrew...that's a problem in games where the DM is a rules lawyer and in AL games where the DM must use RAW

[furby076]

First, I have no problem customizing items. The items in the book are explicitly only suggestions. Creating/changing items is a normal part of a DM's job in this edition (a change from previous editions).

But I object to the idea that items are a right, especially items fit for your character. That's the magic mart idea that 5e explicitly rejected.

please re-read DMG for 3x...it's very much about customizing weapons.

[PhoenixPhyre]

please re-read DMG for 3x...it's very much about customizing weapons.

First, multi posting is a breach of forum etiquette. Don't do it.

Second, 3e has voluminous rules about how items can be customized. 5e doesn't. Oh, and it does specifically say that you can change the type of an item. In the "making a new magic item" section.

[furby076]

First, multi posting is a breach of forum etiquette. Don't do it.

Second, 3e has voluminous rules about how items can be customized. 5e doesn't. Oh, and it does specifically say that you can change the type of an item. In the "making a new magic item" section.

dmg page 263 says "Contains optional rules"
dmg page 284 says "if your players are seasoned verterens and you want to surprise them"

both of these scream homebrew and experienced DM only, others need not apply. And that is the problem others have been saying- over and over. While expert players and DMs may be ok in customizing (rules, equipment, classes, spells, etc) many new DMs will not. Also, as has been said, customizing in AL= NOPE.

A simple line, errata, sage, etc will clear up this issue "swapping weapon types is not considered homebrew...guys and gals, we had limited page space and had to keep the book trim. Kinda self explanatory here that a vorpal longsword can be an axe, shortsword, dagger or any other slashing weapon...signed JC/Sage". With your comment that alludes to saying it's not homebrew (correct me if i'm wrong), what would it kill for official clarification so all players and DMs know that they can do these basic changes? Trust me, JC/Sage have written up clarifications for many things that don't need them

As for multi-posting etiquette..its hard for me to multi quote on my tablet. really a PITA. So, I'll pass on your command (made my save)

[Tanarii]

Wether or not it's home brew to change stuff in the DMG when the entire book is already (very explicitly) about brewing for your own game and world, I can't see either Mearls or JC saying that. They're huge advocates of the DM adjusting their own game as they see fit, and see nothing wrong with it, and in fact encourage it at pretty much every turn.

I know home brew has a bad rep with many DMs, including me to be honest about it. So I do get the OP complaint from that perspective. I just also see why they probably made the choice they did, in this particular case.

[Unoriginal]

while magic items aren't on your shopping list, they are on other peoples shopping list.

No, they are not.


If dnd didn't want any magic items, they should have just omitted them.

There is a lot of other way to include magic items than ye olde magic mart or the magic items' Christmas wish list.


having variety of options does not equate to quantity nor a removal of importance or exceptionality.

Having a systematic



Stylistic choices...ok, how does it not make sense for an ancients paladin (aka nature) to wield a holy avenger quarterstaff, or a conquest paladin to wield a holy avenger hell flail, etc? That's stylistic choice[QUOTE=furby076;23089903]

Yes, and the design team made a different choice.

As is their right.

[QUOTE=furby076;23089903]
Says who? Do you have empirical evidence of this assertion?

There was no empirical studies on the subject, no, however both personal experience and an observation of any game shows that games who try to make you feel good by letting you trivialize every encounters and showering you with unearned stuff tend to fail quite hard.


Mayhaps you wish to show us all the empirical evidences of your assertions?



Giving the player their holy avenger XYZ makes them happy, and that makes the game better. It doesn't mean the player can walk up to the nearest convenience store and buy one or ten, it just means when they finish their quest for one, it actually works with the player concept

And the DM can do that without any problem.



Its a sword because the rules don't stipulate "feel free to substitute different weapon types"

The rules do directly stipulate that.

You might try not to lie about things we can easily check.




Wrong, the rules state the holy avenger IS a sword and nothing else. Which means anything beyond that is homebrew. Now if JC would clarify that substitutions are RAI, then it is no longer homebrew

The rules say it's ok to change is if you want.

That's the truth.

If you don't want to change it, you can, but if you want, you can too.



nah dude. It's not about reasonable or unreasonable, it's about many players and DMs are sticklers for RAW -- which is perfectly OK, and these silly issues pop up.

If someone is that much of an unbending, unwilling-to-consider-change stickler for RAW, they are not being reasonable. Especially when the books tell you it's OK to change things and you should do it if you want.

If your argument is "if you do X, silly issues pop up", maybe you should reconsider how reasonable doing X is.



I never played AL before, but I assume this means if a player wants to ever have his paladin use a holy avenger, then he will need to use a longsword holy avenger.

In AL, it can be any type of sword. And the DM is not authorized to give magic items who aren't in the adventure in the first place, anyway, so the chances of getting a Holy Avenger playing AL are close to 0.



Dude, this is a GAME! It's primary objective is literally to make the participants feel good. Who the heck wants to invest their spare time in doing something that makes them feel miserable (suicidals, emo and goths need not answer),

Nice strawman.

Not advocating to be given meaningless easy successes and rewards does not equate to advocating to be miserable.

A game feels good thanks to challenges you can overcome, rewards you can earn, and interactions with fictional people and places that set your imagination ablaze. Not because you're given all you want when you demand it.



Magic items their proper place? Come on, that's nonsense if I ever saw it written. Magic items are things that are fantastical and have no "proper place" - they are totally out of the realm of proper.

Yes, they have a proper place. Magic items in D&D are supposed to be wondrous, extraordinary. That is their place, and it is proper to have them there.



And dont use the phrase "real place in the world", since we are talking about a game of imagination that has almost no basis in reality of this world

I'm talking about their place in the world of fiction.

Since apparently it needs to be precised.


It's not just that. Many players don't know whats available to them in the first place. I have met quite a few DMs who have made specific books/sections off limits, including magic items lists. So if a player wants a holy avenger spear, and the DM is willing to one day let the player have a holy avenger...but the DM is a stickler for the rules....well, level 18 paladin can enjoy his holy avenger longsword, while he is using PAM....

If the DM can't read the rules who says it's ok to change magic items if you want to, don't play with them. Problem solved.




Currently, a greatsword holy avenger is homebrew...

No it's not.

A Holy Avenger greatsword is literally one of the weapons you can encounter in AL.



that's a problem in games where the DM is a rules lawyer

The DM being a rule lawyer is the problem, especially if they can't read the rules.



in AL games where the DM must use RAW

An AL player would know they have no control over the magic items they will receive anyway, and so will find stuff not based on any build.

Even if an Holy Avenger spear was written directly in the DMG, an AL PC would ONLY get it if one is in the adventure.


dmg page 263 says "Contains optional rules"
dmg page 284 says "if your players are seasoned verterens and you want to surprise them"

both of these scream homebrew and experienced DM only, others need not apply.

Yes, the DMG contains optional rules, and changing magic items is a good way to surprise experienced people.

Nothing about it says "only the expe



And that is the problem others have been saying- over and over. While expert players and DMs may be ok in customizing (rules, equipment, classes, spells, etc) many new DMs will not.

There is no problem. A DM needs to learn to be comfortable with controlling the game, and the DMG specifically advocates that.



Also, as has been said, customizing in AL= NOPE.

Indeed. AL DMs are not allowed to change the magic items the adventure gives to the PCs, which mean there will never be an case like the one in the OP since the players know they can't have specific magic items unless the adventure says so.



A simple line, errata, sage, etc will clear up this issue "swapping weapon types is not considered homebrew...guys and gals, we had limited page space and had to keep the book trim. Kinda self explanatory here that a vorpal longsword can be an axe, shortsword, dagger or any other slashing weapon...signed JC/Sage". With your comment that alludes to saying it's not homebrew (correct me if i'm wrong), what would it kill for official clarification so all players and DMs know that they can do these basic changes? Trust me, JC/Sage have written up clarifications for many things that don't need them


There is no need for this line. The game already says that, and if it's considered homebrew by some to do so it has no bearing on what can be done.

You don't need validation from the game designers to avoid the dreadful word "homebrew", they already told you to modify the game as much as you want.

[Knaight]

My issue with invoking Oberoni here is that it smuggles in that which it is attempting to prove--that the presence (or absence) of such things as Holy Avenger polearms is broken.

Oberoni is only valid when applied to things that are absolutely broken, as in non-functional, self-contradictory, completely out-of-scale with the rest, or otherwise unplayable as written. The following is something to which Oberoni applies--

Consider a class with the following feature:

Death to fiends: Any fiend struck by an attack from a character with this feature dies instantly. A character with this feature cannot attack fiends.

As such, this feature is broken. It is self-nullifying. So even if you fix it with a house-rule, it's still broken as written.
Oberoni also applies to game balance and the like, it's just fuzzier. That said, the definitions of "changing the rules" being thrown around are often pretty dubious. If the game explicitly asks the GM to make a judgement, then the GM makes a judgement, they're following the rules. They aren't changing the rules, or homebrewing, or otherwise fixing a broken game, and it's these criticisms that end to see the term come up.

Also that ability totally works. The key is exploitation of cover mechanics and accidental shots, which could even be clever in the context of that ability being some sort of composite of a boon and a curse intended to obviate it, which is bypassed through the magic of loopholes.


Dude, this is a GAME! It's primary objective is literally to make the participants feel good. Who the heck wants to invest their spare time in doing something that makes them feel miserable (suicidals, emo and goths need not answer),

Magic items their proper place? Come on, that's nonsense if I ever saw it written. Magic items are things that are fantastical and have no "proper place" - they are totally out of the realm of proper. And dont use the phrase "real place in the world", since we are talking about a game of imagination that has almost no basis in reality of this world
That primary objective is better realized for a lot of players if magic items are set up in a thematic fashion, which implies a proper place regardless of them not being based in reality. Exploration of an interesting setting counts much higher for a lot of players than acquisition of cool loot; the converse is also true and there can be points of conflict between them.

This also runs right into a few other aspects of play. There's the question of whether weapons are favored as implements of characterization, where characters generally have a particular weapon that suits them thematically, as opposed to weapons as specific tools for specific purposes, where characters will generally bring whatever weapon best suits the situation they're going to with personal preference being more of a tie breaker than anything. There's also the matter of how customization can be fun, sorting through piles of random junk and making it useful can be fun, and these goals conflict with each other to some degree. There are entire game genres based on making the best of random hands, with roguelikes and anything built around loot randomization (Diablo, Borderlands) standing out in particular.

That's the point of the "magic items in their proper place" comment. The customization and access from magic marts makes the game actively less fun for the people with that preference.

[Drascin]

My opinion on this should be obvious from my summary, but if it's not...
A TRPG is a storytelling medium, like any novel or video game. If you include, say, a Holy Avenger in your game, it should have a purpose behind it, just like anything you include in a book you're writing or a game you're designing. For weapons like the Holy Avenger, the purpose is presumably so the PCs can use it as a weapon. This means that you should tailor any tailorable details to make them the best for that purposes.
There are cases where fictional characters upgrade or replace their weapons; the most recent in mainstream media is probably Thor's new axe in Infinity War. (Is that a spoiler?) Obviously, in that case his weapon wasn't the same type as his old one, but that isn't the norm; most of the time, characters continue using more or less the same fighting style after an upgrade as before. (For instance, Tanis Half-Elven picks up a magic sword after his nonmagic sword gets dissolved by giant slug acid. It was a weird chapter.)
Why? Because characters are more than just their weapons. A duelist uses a rapier to represent their elegance and emphasize their speed, and a greatsword is neither elegant nor speedy; if a duelist's rapier breaks, it doesn't make much sense to replace it with a greatsword. A barbarian's axe represents their power and ferocity, while a dwarf's hammer represents their power and association with crafting and a cleric's mace represents their holiness*. The weapon a well-designed character uses, like everything else about them, represents some facet of their personality and/or fighting style. If that doesn't change when their weapon changes (e.g, the character development Thor went through after losing Mjolnir), it doesn't make sense to change their weapons, any more than it makes sense to radically alter your protagonist's character design without a corresponding change in their character.
Even if a player's character doesn't have more than thirty seconds of thought put into their non-mechanical design, they probably have at least a subconscious understanding of what they are, which influences and is influenced by** the choices they made regarding that character's appearance. Thus, changing its design without reason makes as much sense as changing the character design of, say, a cheap webcomic's protagonist without reason; it's not as bad as changing a well-done character design with no reason, but even so...why?
TL;DR: If an axe-paladin gains a Holy Avenger as the reward for a quest which proves that he values chivalry and skill over mere power, changing his weapon makes some sense. If the only change the paladin undergoes in that quest is that he finds a Holy Avenger, it doesn't make any sense. Especially if the player still wants to be an axe-paladin.

Of course, if there is some reason for the Holy Avenger to be in the game other than it being a new weapon for the paladin, there might be a reason to keep it a sword. Of course, there's also the question of why you would use the Holy Avenger and not, say, a Holy Grail expy.

*Scepters are a pretty common standard of office for both high-ranking nobles and high-ranking clergy.
**Psychology is complicated.

This bears mentioning. People have images for their characters, and people get attached to those images, and those images are more important than what the book says.

If my GM put a super cool lance in the game in a campaign where literally none of the players used lances or even had a mount, I'd probably look at him and ask "...uh, so, level with me, [Name], why is this thing here? You know we're just going to try to find someone to sell it or gift it to, right?" And I know that I as a GM tend to be disappointed when I craft a cool legendary weapon and nobody actually uses it. So logical thing is to tailor the legendary weapons the campaign runs into to the kind of stuff players will use.

[Unoriginal]

This bears mentioning. People have images for their characters, and people get attached to those images, and those images are more important than what the book says.

If my GM put a super cool lance in the game in a campaign where literally none of the players used lances or even had a mount, I'd probably look at him and ask "...uh, so, level with me, [Name], why is this thing here? You know we're just going to try to find someone to sell it or gift it to, right?" And I know that I as a GM tend to be disappointed when I craft a cool legendary weapon and nobody actually uses it. So logical thing is to tailor the legendary weapons the campaign runs into to the kind of stuff players will use.

Or the DM expects you to find someone to gift it or sell it to.

Or maybe a PC might try out a lance and the player might find out they like the image.

Or maybe the lance is here because magic items have a role beyond belonging to PCs, and the PCs are exploring the tomb of Mounty McKnight, made famous for his daring charge against the great red dragon who assaulted his city, which turned the tide of battle.

Neither interactions with the world nor aesthetics are set in stone, and magic items don't exist to so they can belong to PCs.

Dragonbait's Holy Avenger in ToA is a perfect exemple of that. Nothing against you, Drascin, but I think if a spear-using Paladin's player saw Dragonbait show up and said "...uh, so, level with me, DM, why is this weapon here? You know I use a spear, right?" at my table, I would stare at the wall for a while, honestly disturbed.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Dragonbait's Holy Avenger in ToA is a perfect exemple of that. Nothing against you, Drascin, but I think if a spear-using Paladin's player saw Dragonbait show up and said "...uh, so, level with me, DM, why is this weapon here? You know I use a spear, right?" at my table, I would stare at the wall for a while, honestly disturbed.

This actually pretty handily exemplifies a problem I'm running into now.

The Glaive wielding Hexblade in my game is starting to get a bit disappointed with not having found any better weapons in the Curse of Strahd campaign. The weapon type doesn't even show up at all in CoS, the spear that shows up has a class restriction on it.

At first I thought he was fine without finding some magic weapon, considering he already has improved pact weapon along with the most consistent damage in the party. He very clearly mentioned his disappointment at not somehow finding a Glaive in Baba Lysaga's hut though.

Now I've got a choice to make at how I can please the player pretty heavily hinting that he wants to find specifically a magical glaive when the only magical weapon still on the list to find is the Luck Blade. Current Plan replaces the Luck Blade with a homebrew Frostbrand Glaive but I don't want to replace an iconic and powerful weapon specifically to please the player.

[Unoriginal]

This actually pretty handily exemplifies a problem I'm running into now.

The Glaive wielding Hexblade in my game is starting to get a bit disappointed with not having found any better weapons in the Curse of Strahd campaign. The weapon type doesn't even show up at all in CoS, the spear that shows up has a class restriction on it.

At first I thought he was fine without finding some magic weapon, considering he already has improved pact weapon along with the most consistent damage in the party. He very clearly mentioned his disappointment at not somehow finding a Glaive in Baba Lysaga's hut though.

Now I've got a choice to make at how I can please the player pretty heavily hinting that he wants to find specifically a magical glaive when the only magical weapon still on the list to find is the Luck Blade. Current Plan replaces the Luck Blade with a homebrew Frostbrand Glaive but I don't want to replace an iconic and powerful weapon specifically to please the player.

My advice is to not add a specific weapon just to please the player, let alone changing the Luck Blade into a glaive.

However, did he get any magic item at all? There are a few Warlock NPCs in CoS, IIRC, so adding a warlock-helping item wouldn't be an issue.

Or maybe have a NPC point out in-universe how he's been cleaning the darkness of Barovia with his own personal weapon already, which makes it pretty amazing in its own right.

Or you could add a smith who can modify one of the other weapons they found into a glaive -in exchange of helping them with an issue, of course.

[Sigreid]

This actually pretty handily exemplifies a problem I'm running into now.

The Glaive wielding Hexblade in my game is starting to get a bit disappointed with not having found any better weapons in the Curse of Strahd campaign. The weapon type doesn't even show up at all in CoS, the spear that shows up has a class restriction on it.

At first I thought he was fine without finding some magic weapon, considering he already has improved pact weapon along with the most consistent damage in the party. He very clearly mentioned his disappointment at not somehow finding a Glaive in Baba Lysaga's hut though.

Now I've got a choice to make at how I can please the player pretty heavily hinting that he wants to find specifically a magical glaive when the only magical weapon still on the list to find is the Luck Blade. Current Plan replaces the Luck Blade with a homebrew Frostbrand Glaive but I don't want to replace an iconic and powerful weapon specifically to please the player.

I would probably screw with him but giving another polearm that let's him use his feat and tactics, but is not a glaive.

[Drascin]

Or the DM expects you to find someone to gift it or sell it to.

Or maybe a PC might try out a lance and the player might find out they like the image.

Or maybe the lance is here because magic items have a role beyond belonging to PCs, and the PCs are exploring the tomb of Mounty McKnight, made famous for his daring charge against the great red dragon who assaulted his city, which turned the tide of battle.

Neither interactions with the world nor aesthetics are set in stone, and magic items don't exist to so they can belong to PCs.

Dragonbait's Holy Avenger in ToA is a perfect exemple of that. Nothing against you, Drascin, but I think if a spear-using Paladin's player saw Dragonbait show up and said "...uh, so, level with me, DM, why is this weapon here? You know I use a spear, right?" at my table, I would stare at the wall for a while, honestly disturbed.

And sure, that makes sense, but when you do that it's important to realize that such an item is not treasure, it's another bit of the the secene setting and backdrop, like the tapestries or the mausoleum, and you certainly don't get to complain when the players leave it in the tomb where they found it. Like, the way you describe it, it wouldn't have even occured to me to pick up that sword even if I WAS playing a sword user!

So if the module expects this to be a "quest reward" kind of thing, you should add something else that the players would actually use to the place.

[Pex]

This actually pretty handily exemplifies a problem I'm running into now.

The Glaive wielding Hexblade in my game is starting to get a bit disappointed with not having found any better weapons in the Curse of Strahd campaign. The weapon type doesn't even show up at all in CoS, the spear that shows up has a class restriction on it.

At first I thought he was fine without finding some magic weapon, considering he already has improved pact weapon along with the most consistent damage in the party. He very clearly mentioned his disappointment at not somehow finding a Glaive in Baba Lysaga's hut though.

Now I've got a choice to make at how I can please the player pretty heavily hinting that he wants to find specifically a magical glaive when the only magical weapon still on the list to find is the Luck Blade. Current Plan replaces the Luck Blade with a homebrew Frostbrand Glaive but I don't want to replace an iconic and powerful weapon specifically to please the player.

Why? What is so terrible about changing a module statistic to specifically please a player? Why should a module statistic outrank a player? Of course you want to be careful changing something doesn't break the game, but would a Glaive Luck Blade really be that world destroying because it's not a long sword or even as a Frostbrand? Having it be a Glaive Luck Blade makes for a good story. The character is disappointed he hasn't found a magical glaive all this time but continued on. Suddenly by luck he finds a magical lucky glaive. He feels lucky. All past disappointment goes away.

[Tanarii]

The Glaive wielding Hexblade in my game is starting to get a bit disappointed with not having found any better weapons in the Curse of Strahd campaign. The weapon type doesn't even show up at all in CoS, the spear that shows up has a class restriction on it.

At first I thought he was fine without finding some magic weapon, considering he already has improved pact weapon along with the most consistent damage in the party. He very clearly mentioned his disappointment at not somehow finding a Glaive in Baba Lysaga's hut though.
A Pact of the Balde Hexblade with Improved Pact Weapon is complaining about not finding a specific type of magic weapon? That takes the cake for unreasonable expectations. If there's any weapon using build that really doesn't need to find a specific magic weapon, or any magic weapon at all, that's it.

Does he have PAM? GWM?

[Unoriginal]

Why? What is so terrible about changing a module statistic to specifically please a player? Why should a module statistic outrank a player? Of course you want to be careful changing something doesn't break the game, but would a Glaive Luck Blade really be that world destroying because it's not a long sword or even as a Frostbrand? Having it be a Glaive Luck Blade makes for a good story. The character is disappointed he hasn't found a magical glaive all this time but continued on. Suddenly by luck he finds a magical lucky glaive. He feels lucky. All past disappointment goes away.

How does it make a good story? Why didn't all the other players get tailored-for-their-build magic weapons?

It's not luck, it's the DM handing you a feelgood pill.

Brave New World is not a "How to DM" guide.

[JackPhoenix]

And sure, that makes sense, but when you do that it's important to realize that such an item is not treasure, it's another bit of the the secene setting and backdrop, like the tapestries or the mausoleum, and you certainly don't get to complain when the players leave it in the tomb where they found it. Like, the way you describe it, it wouldn't have even occured to me to pick up that sword even if I WAS playing a sword user!

So if the module expects this to be a "quest reward" kind of thing, you should add something else that the players would actually use to the place.

There's a difference between "can't use" and "choose not to". We've got glaive-using cleric in the game I play in. We've got magical sword (can't remember if it was longsword or greatsword, didn't mattered to me and my wizard either way). It was given to him. He now has both his glaive, and the sword... he's still fighting with glaive as a main weapon, but he's got no problem switching to the sword if the situation warrants it.

In the game I'm running, the party wanted to equip themselves with silvered weapons (because there is at least one werewolf running around, beside ton of undead... I'm running modified CoS set in Innistrad). They helped the village blacksmith, he knew how to forge stuff, the characters knew how to perform the silvering process, though none of them knew anything about blacksmithing. The not-ranger managed to get a bunch of silver arrows, but the longsword-wielding paladin wasn't so lucky: the blacksmith, being just a village smith and not specialist weaponmaker, didn't knew how to forge proper sword... daggers and knives, spear- and arrowheads, axe, even falchion (also known as scimitar in certain cultures), but not swords. Well, the paladin got himself silvered axe instead. Now, mechanically, there isn't much of a difference between battleaxe and longsword, but aesthetically? Yep, again: sword serves well enough for more natural foes, axe comes up if silver is needed.

I've mentioned Holy Avenger before: in my Eberron campaign, there are 5 HA around: greataxe, halberd, longsword, greatsword (technically, there are two greatswords, but one is even more powerful (and maybe not-so-holy anymore), and also pretty much unobtainable, unless you really want to screw over Thrane) and scimitar. They are legendary weapons, the characters can do the research to find out about them, some of their history and their current (or at least likely current) location. However, there's no Holy Avenger warhammer, and there won't be just because the paladin uses a hammer. If the player wants Holy Avenger, he can either research one of the existing ones and then try to get his hands on it (how he deals with the current owners and the fact they are dedicated to different faiths is up to him), or he may try to *make* one, and start a legend of his own. But he won't be getting Holy Avenger in random loot, or as semi-random quest reward. The same is true about all legendary items (well, except the glue and the solvent)

[Pex]

A Pact of the Balde Hexblade with Improved Pact Weapon is complaining about not finding a specific type of magic weapon? That takes the cake for unreasonable expectations. If there's any weapon using build that really doesn't need to find a specific magic weapon, or any magic weapon at all, that's it.

Does he have PAM? GWM?

Sort of.

In my hexblade game I did tell the paladin he has first priority on any magic weapon we find, but I would like one eventually. I'm using a shield so it needs to be one handed. I'm not particular on the form myself. If it's +0 plus cool thing that's fine, but a +1 plus cool thing is good too and I'll swap Improved Blade Weapon to something else.

If this particular hexblade player does have Pole Arm Master, then wanting a magical glaive is not unreasonable. He would be looking for something more than only a +1 since his invocation gives him that. He doesn't need a magic glaive as much as others, but it's still nice to have one. If he's getting his fair share of magic items in comparison to other players for the amount of magic items that particular campaign has then lack of a magical glaive isn't a huge problem. That does seem to be the case.


How does it make a good story? Why didn't all the other players get tailored-for-their-build magic weapons?

It's not luck, it's the DM handing you a feelgood pill.

Brave New World is not a "How to DM" guide.

A DM giving a player something he likes is not a violation of the Geneva Convention.

[darknite]

AL has one-off weapons here and there. I've got a PC with a Scimitar of Speed that's actually a longsword (Oathkeeper) and recently there was a module with a Vorpal Sword that is a scimitar.

[GlenSmash!]

I've got a PC with a Scimitar of Speed that's actually a longsword (Oathkeeper).

That's a sweet sword! Versatile with built in action economy goodness.

[darknite]

That's a sweet sword! Versatile with built in action economy goodness.

Plus a level of Hexblade lets me use Cha as the attack/damage stat. Figured a special weapon like that warranted the dip.

[GlenSmash!]

Plus a level of Hexblade lets me use Cha as the attack/damage stat. Figured a special weapon like that warranted the dip.

I'd want it on a Grappler/Shover.

It would be perfect for that.

[ProsecutorGodot]

A Pact of the Balde Hexblade with Improved Pact Weapon is complaining about not finding a specific type of magic weapon? That takes the cake for unreasonable expectations. If there's any weapon using build that really doesn't need to find a specific magic weapon, or any magic weapon at all, that's it.

Does he have PAM? GWM?

PAM - Sentinel, he built his character around being a blender that doesn't allow enemies to run past him towards the cleric. I can't remember the last time he's ever failed to hit a target since he's got the "PAM + Sentinel + Darkness + Devil's Sight + Elven Accuracy" started level 1 with 20 cha.

I understand that the player gets a lot of enjoyment out of getting new loot, we share that in common with each other, but it's difficult for me to rationalize throwing a magical glaive into the mix for him when the Halfling Rogue has been stuck with a silvered shortsword when the luck blade has been waiting the entire time for her.

I could just put both in Strahd's vault for them to find but I'm trying not to give them too many magic items.

[Pex]

PAM - Sentinel, he built his character around being a blender that doesn't allow enemies to run past him towards the cleric. I can't remember the last time he's ever failed to hit a target since he's got the "PAM + Sentinel + Darkness + Devil's Sight + Elven Accuracy" started level 1 with 20 cha.

I understand that the player gets a lot of enjoyment out of getting new loot, we share that in common with each other, but it's difficult for me to rationalize throwing a magical glaive into the mix for him when the Halfling Rogue has been stuck with a silvered shortsword when the luck blade has been waiting the entire time for her.

I could just put both in Strahd's vault for them to find but I'm trying not to give them too many magic items.

If the player doesn't need a magic weapon as much then it can wait. Others have said the Sunblade is also in this module. The hexblade player would have a point if one player got Sunblade and another got a Luckblade and all he has is a Glaive +1 and only because he spent two class resources to get it - Pact choice and Invocation choice. If other players are only getting plain +1 weapons I don't think he would be saying anything, but they're getting Weapons Of Coolness. He wants a Weapon Of Coolness as well.