Would You Let Your Players Play THIS???

[wayfare]

During character creation for a recent 3.5 game a friend was running, I asked for permission to play an animated sword. Here is what I had in mind

Animated Bastard Sword (Xandar)
Concept: An ancient elven mage/smith wrought this blade with steel and spell, but botched the casting, trapping his soul in the steel. When loosed by its owner, the blade can interact with the world, until recalled by its master.

Stats:
Size Small

Natural Armor +4

No constitution score. While not undead, this weapon is simply animated steel, and thus lacks a constitution score.

Levitation: Xandar can levitate up to 10 feet above the ground, and has a movement rate of 30.

Mage Hand: Xandar can use Mage Hand at will.

Partial Sunder Immunity: Effects that would shatter Xandar are not effective until all his HP is lost.

Special: When Xandar is reduced to 0 hp, his falls to the floor, inert. Xandar regains 1 HP per day, but cannot be restored to mobility until all HP are regained.

When Xandar is loosed, he can communicate via sound with anyone close enough to hear him. When Xandar is sheathed, he can communicate telepathically with anyone touching his hilt.

At 4th level and every 4 levels thereafter, Xandar gains a +1 enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls. This also grants Xandar +1 Natural Armor.

--

The character was going to be a Duskblade or a Warmage, but the DM nixed the idea because it was "too strange." Does anybody have a better reason for removing the character, or would this work in a campaign?

[BluesEclipse]

So he wants to play an intelligent weapon.

As a DM, I don't think I'd allow it, but that's more because I don't think I could ever find a way to make a campaign setting realisticly react to an independent sword.

I definitely wouldn't allow any spellcasting with verbal or material components, nor would he really be able to carry anything.

[Undercroft]

I'd possibly disallow it as is, mostly due to how awkward it would be to make npcs react to an animated sword.

Why not opt for a domination-esque route, where the sword essentially mind controls some peasant wielder (maybe by high ego or by a magical domninate effect). Also speaking through the host creature too, so you'd be able to get around with the interacting with npcs thing.
This would likely be an evil option though

[awa]

id probally disallow it while i am open to a small amount of homebrew something as extreem as that i probally wouldent allow. Also id probally disalow it for balance reasons its bizare enough that determining its la will not be straight forward. and alot of stuff like how it sees can it use magic items excetera are left unclear.

edit i second roleplaying concerns i can see a charecter like this either dominating any roleplaing encounters becuase in your standard setting magic flying talking swords are sufficently rare that you will be the focus of every interaction you have. or the sword is going to pretend to just be a sword when not fighting and then it gets no interaction at all.

[Goober4473]

I wouldn't have a personal aversion to it. It depends on the setting and style of game though. Survival horror... not so much. Eberron? Sure.

[Grendus]

I'd be tempted to allow it in a high magic world. He has no body, so magic items or armor, and nobody can enchant him further. I'd probably change the "no con score but not an undead" to "Construct type" and give him VoP for free (sans exalted feats) instead of that weapon progression, fluffing it as the enchantments he was attempting to put into the sword in the first place. He could cast spells if he took the Somatic Weaponry feat, but he would have to find some way to hold material components (if the sword had a Hilt Hollow from Dungeonscape he could have someone else pack a few spell components inside).

I actually see this as being a little weak. No ranged attacks, outside of what you can cast as a duskblade (I'd nix the warmage, an animated sword gish makes sense, an animated sword caster doesn't), no magical gear, and you would be dependent on another player to do any shopping and interaction for you. I'd allow it.

[Totally Guy]

I think think the character concept is a bit trite to be honest.

It's almost as if it's trite by trying too hard not to be trite.

I mean, think about live action tv shows. The best of them manage to create fleshed out characters with motivations and beliefs and most of those are completely constrained by lack of magic and total absence of other fantastic races.

[Eldan]

Why not? I've seen stranger things in Planescape. But it depends on the setting, relaly.

Now, how about he plays a really, really, really strongly reflavoured Warforged?

[Ranos]

I wouldn't. Not really because this is strange or anything, but because of many issues that would arise in the course of play. The race is a bit of a mess, frankly. Can you see ? If so, how and with what kind of vision ? Are you subject to dispel magic ? You seem to want to be a mage, but how can you cast spells without being able to move ?

I did actually allow this concept once though. The guy made a Binder/Fiend of Possession build that had been trapped in a sword for a few centuries, and now believed himself to be the sword. He worked pretty well together with the Crusader, shifting his magic weapon enhancements around to fit every kind of situation and adding some binder mojo to the mix.

[Skaven]

Depends on the setting.

Planescape: fine

Forgotten Realms: maybe

Eberron: maybe

Krynn: probably not

However it also depends on how you're working with the other players. if you came up with the idea with a friend and your friend is playing a character who owns the sword, its no more strange than a player buying an intelligent weapon at character creation. However you would have to roleplay it realistically and you would be constrained by what you are. Essentially you would have to stay in the fighters scabbard for most of the time. It would probably end up being boring to play. However it could end up pretty funny if you were personable enough to play with your friend enough that it appeared that the fighter argued with one of his swords most of the time. However playing it as a full time spellcaster might not work very well. I suppose still spell + enschew materials. Also, definitely construct type.

[valadil]

I'd allow those mechanics. The character would depend on the game though. Not just the setting, but the tone of the game would matter. Yes, that sword fits in FR. I'd absolutely run it in a shenanigans game. In a serious or low power game I don't think it'd fit though.

[Ozreth]

probably not just because I guess im kind of old school and it would just be silly/boring to me and I wouldnt want to work it into a campaign.

[Lord.Sorasen]

I think as everyone else has stated, seeing an independent sword could cause problems. I personally would have him play as a sword which can talk telepathically to whoever holds him, but cannot actually move typically. As someone else stated, I would give him vow of poverty as a bonus feat and take away the bonus feats... And I'd give him ancestral weapon, with the weapon being him. He could "absorb" energy through destroying other valuable items, using them to boost his own power.

I would change that "mage" bit and replace it with "psion", so the sword could use powers without components. It would be able to use this power to move for short periods of time, but would for the most part rely on someone else to make him effective.

Of course, this would probably be less fun to play... But I like it more.

[MightyTim]

I'm a little bit confused how you would play this.

Who is the 'master' you stated in stat description?

Is the master an NPC, another PC, or going to be controlled by you?

How would the sword itself communicate with the rest of the members in the party?

If it's another PC or an NPC that's holding your character during combat, you aren't really doing anything yourself at all. If you are going to roleplay the person using the sword, from a mechanical standpoint, you're asking your DM to give you for free a magical weapon that won't become obsolete as the campaign goes on. Note that this isn't in and of itself a bad thing, as it just means the DM doesn't need to worry about that sort of treasure for you, but unless you're doing a lot of roleplaying, the fact that your character is the sword itself sort of just becomes splitting hairs. Did you really need to 'be' the sword any more?

The one thing about this concept that I do have a problem with is the apparent fact that it's almost impossible (at low levels) for your character to die, which is a non-insignificant benefit in the early part of a campaign.

[Bobby Archer]

It looks like there are two different rationales for rejecting this character: thematic and mechanical. It sounds like your DM's rejection is thematic, which likely means that no amount of tweaking the stats of your submission is going to make it fit. As many other posters have pointed out, if a floating, talking sword doesn't have a place in the setting or in the style of game the DM's running, than it doesn't fit. The DM has the right to reject a homebrewed creature. You'll just have to find something that works better in your DM's game.

Mechanically, I think it might be a better idea to work from the Animated Object entry in the Monster Manual to make up a base creature type for your animated sword, rather than just putting together a bunch of traits, sticking a LA on it and crossing your fingers. The particulars would have to be worked out between you and your DM.

[Anxe]

I wanted to play a character like that once (But my character in the campaign I wanted to do it in never died). Given that I'm the usual DM for my group now, I'd definitely allow it! It'd seem hypocritical to me if I didn't.

[Flickerdart]

Play a Fiend of Possession, possess a sword, get some rube to lug you around.

[Yora]

Since you asked: No, I wouldn't.

Not that there's any problem with the implementation (because I didn't check that part), but in my campaigns, there's usually no place fur such highly unusual characters. I guess in some capaigns they might fit, but not mine.

[Masaioh]

I'd possibly disallow it as is, mostly due to how awkward it would be to make npcs react to an animated sword.

Why not opt for a domination-esque route, where the sword essentially mind controls some peasant wielder (maybe by high ego or by a magical domninate effect). Also speaking through the host creature too, so you'd be able to get around with the interacting with npcs thing.
This would likely be an evil option though

I would definitely allow this.

[wayfare]

I can see most of the logic in this thread, and appreciate it greatly. I just chafe at reasonless "no." I also considered it a bit unjust as our party was heavy on +LA characters who didn't actually have to take the level adjustment -- hound archons and one of those crazy kobold combos that eventually ends in something pun-pun like.

But, as a whole, I can see the logic.

[cylch]

Well I can see why people wouldn't allow this as a whole if you're set on making this character a while ago i found this post and it might be close (if not exactly) what you're looking to do if your DM is ok with the Psionics system.

http://community.wizards.com/go/thre...ystal_build%29

[Fhaolan]

I'd allow the concept, but not the execution. I'm used to people wanting to play awakened animals, familiars, and other unusual character races like Centaurs and the like.

Of course, I don't believe D&D is the right game system for playing this kind of game. If I was forced to use a gear-head system where everything needs to be statted out, I'd go Hero or GURPs for this kind of thing. Otherwise, I'd go a rules-light system where advantages/disadvantages were more broadly defined.

[Weezer]

I'd be fine with this, in the right game and with the right restrictions. In a high magic/silly game it would fit pretty well and in a serious evil campaign it could also fit, if the sword dominated a peasant type to carry him and pretended to be the peasant. That could be a pretty cool concept, especially if he hid his true nature even from his companions. But in a low magic or serious game? I just don't think it would fit.

[TroubleBrewing]

I'd allow it. I love unusual characters myself, so when someone else brings one to the table, it's usually given the stamp of approval.

[DukeofDellot]

I'd probably suggest a character who can turn into a sword instead, failing that, I'd allow it... probably presenting several of the ways I've designed characters of this type.

It's not really that odd of a character concept.

In fact, it's one of my suggested archetypes for a setting that I sometimes run.

[Remmirath]

I probably wouldn't allow it as somebody's only character - there are simply a lot of situations in which an intelligent sword wouldn't be able to do terribly much (less situations in a roleplaying light game, but that's not the type I run). I might say they have to have it along with the wielder as a familiar/animal companion type deal.

If people were playing more than one character, then I'd allow it as a second character on its own, though all of this would depend somewhat on the level of the game. I'd be more likely to allow it in a higher level game, less likely in a lower level game.

[Tengu_temp]

I wouldn't, just like I wouldn't allow any other weird/silly race. Way too often, such characters are taken by people who have to play something crazy, or else they feel their character is too boring and plain - and often the originality of their character ends on its race. Silly races are no substitute for good roleplaying.

[nedz]

I'd allow it in the right game, but not in others. Most likely not at first level though.

In a 2E game I once had a PC get turned into an intelligent Helm. It wasn't too bad since he could be worn. The party even broke some serious criminal out of prison, and then feebleminded minded them, so that he could have a mount.

How did it happen?
Short Story: Very badly worded Wish, combined with a heavily modified re-written Deck of Many Things in a Wildzone.
The character was a Wild-mage, and He'd just pulled off one Wish made under exactly the same circumstances, and then He got over-confident.

[Fhaolan]

I wouldn't, just like I wouldn't allow any other weird/silly race. Way too often, such characters are taken by people who have to play something crazy, or else they feel their character is too boring and plain - and often the originality of their character ends on its race. Silly races are no substitute for good roleplaying.

As said by a Tengu?

[shadow_archmagi]

I wouldn't allow it. Letting a PC declare himself an ancient corrupted bastard is always a mistake. Even if it is followed by swords.