Sentient Weapon as a PC?

[Chalkarts]

Would you allow it in your game?

If one character were a Powerful magical weapon containing the soul of a PC with all that PCs mental stats and knowledge, perhaps even including spell casting abilities(Verbal only).

This weapon is then wielded by another PC in battle. So kind of a two characters in one, Sentient sword, that can be passed from player to player and which ever player has me can converse telepathically to it.

What do you think some of the pros and cons of having this among your PCs?

[Keltest]

Off the top of my head, you don't get to do anything in game but talk to whoever is holding you, unless you have some sort of telekinetic power that you didn't tell us about. That seems like a bit of a down side.

[Toilet Cobra]

Did this once! Make sure the player knows they will probably get bored being carried around, unable to interact with the environment besides telling their wielder to go look at something. And I'm strongly advising you let them speak aloud so they can interact with the whole party!

Other than that, make them take the Still Spell feat and be wary of those Intelligent Item Powers.

[Geddy2112]

Somebody has been watching Soul Eater.

I mean, it could be done, but I see a major problem as the weapon is inanimate, and requires another PC to use the weapon to do anything. So usually they just sit there.

I would favor an animate object, if not a weapon, a suit of armor FMA style, or really anything capable of movement. Awakened animal, sentient construct, etc.

[Thrudd]

Would you allow it in your game?

If one character were a Powerful magical weapon containing the soul of a PC with all that PCs mental stats and knowledge, perhaps even including spell casting abilities(Verbal only).

This weapon is then wielded by another PC in battle. So kind of a two characters in one, Sentient sword, that can be passed from player to player and which ever player has me can converse telepathically to it.

What do you think some of the pros and cons of having this among your PCs?

Not a good idea. Maybe if the player doesn't really want to play, and is only present occasionally. What would be the point of playing such a thing?

[Ashtagon]

I wouldn't allow it. Even in "gonzo" games, at a minimum, I require the following:

1. The character must be able to get around on his own steam.
2. The character must be able to manipulate and carry objects that he finds in the adventure.
3. The character must be able to communicate with the party and with "talkative" NPCs without special assistance.

A magic sword fails all three of these.

[SethoMarkus]

The only way I would allow this in one of my games is if the Intelligent Item PC took full control over an NPC, conferring all of their abilities to that "host". Essentially, they are playing a normal PC but fluffed to really be the item the poor smuck is carrying.

But that's just me.

[Xuc Xac]

This is what the game "Wield" is all about. You play a powerful sentient weapon that uses the heroes who carry it as ablative hit points.

[goto124]

I've seen sapient weapons jump about on their hilts, so that covers the movement bit...

Spoiler: Doesn't have to talk like a dog though

Show

[Quertus]

I've played the sentient weapon that drove the meat sack. I've seen the sentient tumor that ran the brain dead giant. But I can't remember ever seeing the sentient weapon PC in the hands of another PC. It was always the case that the meat was either an NPC, or the unfortunate character you ran when the real character failed to maintain control.

Sounds like great fun, but quite the potential challenge. Less fun if the sword has no way to communicate.

[mikeejimbo]

I'd totally allow this, especially in GURPS, since Thaumatology has examples for building magic items as characters.

[Ashtagon]

I'd totally allow this, especially in GURPS, since Thaumatology has examples for building magic items as characters.

Yeah, but GURPS is flexible enough that you could build a chair as a PC. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should. Not every character concept allows the character to interact meaningfully enough with the campaign world to keep the player's interest in the game. "Magic sword" is one of those character concepts that sounds fun, but provides a disappointing amount of game-world interaction.

That said, if you can manage it, more power to you.

[goto124]

May make a good temporary (N)PC for the player to play while the usual PC is awaiting resurrection or otherwise on hiatus.

Also, sapient chair as a PC.

[IntelectPaladin]

As much as I hate to say it, I'm not seeing the creative possibilities being displayed here.
I mean, Hello? Why not allow the item-character minor levitation? It's magic, for pity's sake.
This question has basically hit my creativity overdrive button.

I mean, Think about it. Our body and mind are incredibly complicated. With an sentient item P.C,
There are obviously going to be other aspects of themselves, Just as complicated.

And We've all seen animated books and raggamoffyns, And what they can do. (Not to mention haunted items.)

A part of me is wondering just why so many of you seem to dislike it.
This could actually work out very well! Still retaining all the limitations of an object,
(Can't exactly get a date if you're a frying pan,)

But look at the One Ring! It was clearly a sentient object,
And an players-as-objects campaign just sounds inspiring.
(Having the BBEG As an object, one-ring type, Would be a nice little plot twist.)

I mean, Doesn't any of this hit home?

Spoiler: Sorry, I just couldn't contain myself.

Show

For example, Why couldn't a magical staff P.C. float, Absorb spells from a shield it put's up,
And be particularly vulnerable to artificers?

Why not have the shield be able to make itself roll,
Extending and contracting spikes along the side to accomplish this? (And constantly fear breaking?)

Or a sentient lantern P.C, Able to change what kind of light it emits,
Gaining blacklight at level 10.

And Need I go on about the possibilities of the aforementioned sentient magic books?
(Flying, New chapters with new levels, Maps, scared of fire, etc.)

And the bows and crossbows,
Able to reload themselves, and choose what type of ammunition?
Like alchemist's fire at level 12, Scattershot at 4,
As well as having a bowstring for a weakness?

Alright, I'm done.

Well, I just had to get the creativity burst out of my system. My apologies.
All In all, I would definitely enjoy seeing an Object P.C., And would allow it should I be in a position to do so.

Thank you all for taking the time to read this somewhat illegible babble. Have a nice day! And if it's a bad day,
Headlock it and smash it into a preferable one.

[Millstone85]

Would it break the game if the weapon and the wielder acted on separate turns, essentially carrying each other through the battlefield?

[Piedmon_Sama]

I would definitely not allow it because it sounds like an excuse for someone to play on their phone while their character is sheathed!

[Ashtagon]

So it's a magic sword that can float around by itself for locomotion, pick up objects using that self-same floaty force, talk, and goodness knows what else.

At this point, why not just play a re-fluffed avariel or re-fluffed winged modron?

[Xuc Xac]

Many people like playing bards and other types of characters that don't do anything personally, but buff the other PCs. Or hacker types in cyberpunk games who don't physically do anything because they just supply information. How is this any different?

Instead of "I cast some buff spells to protect Steve and help him hit things harder with his sword", it's "I cast some buff spells to protect and enhance Steve so he can hit things harder with me". You can't split the party and run off on your own, but that's not really a drawback. When the party stays together, you can hang around and kibitz like any other character. If you have good teamwork, there's no real drawback. If you want to do spontaneous stuff like "While they are cautiously looking for traps and stuff, I'm just going to poke the statue in the eye", then you'll be limited, but I'm failing to see the downside for the GM.

It seems that many people opposed to it are assuming that "sentience" is the weapon's only power so they're just dead weight that talks. How many magic weapons can you think of that were intelligent but otherwise mundane? There should also be a variety of other abilities that the weapon can use.

[Keltest]

Many people like playing bards and other types of characters that don't do anything personally, but buff the other PCs. Or hacker types in cyberpunk games who don't physically do anything because they just supply information. How is this any different?

Instead of "I cast some buff spells to protect Steve and help him hit things harder with his sword", it's "I cast some buff spells to protect and enhance Steve so he can hit things harder with me". You can't split the party and run off on your own, but that's not really a drawback. When the party stays together, you can hang around and kibitz like any other character. If you have good teamwork, there's no real drawback. If you want to do spontaneous stuff like "While they are cautiously looking for traps and stuff, I'm just going to poke the statue in the eye", then you'll be limited, but I'm failing to see the downside for the GM.

It seems that many people opposed to it are assuming that "sentience" is the weapon's only power so they're just dead weight that talks. How many magic weapons can you think of that were intelligent but otherwise mundane? There should also be a variety of other abilities that the weapon can use.

Perhaps, but when a bard wants to go and do something other than buff people, like, for example, read a book, he has the ability to do so.

[CharonsHelper]

Somebody has been watching Soul Eater.

Now - that could be interesting, though I don't think it could be slapped onto a current system - the system would have to be designed with it in mind from the ground up.

Out of combat the 'weapons' would normally be in human form, only switching to weapon form for combat. While in human form, they're much more fragile than their wielder, but they gain huge defense/DR/hardness (or whatever - depends upon the system) when in weapon form.

The in-combat movement controlled entirely by the wielder. The system might work best with opposed combat rolls rather than static defenses, the wielder and weapon trading off which was doing offense depending upon the situation. Both having their own special abilities, but the most powerful moves being when both wielder & weapon work together, perhaps with a defensive disadvantage.

If you have an odd number of PCs, have an extra weapon which a single wielder dual-wields and/or perhaps have certain 'weapon' classes be able to fight solo.

[Bohandas]

I can't see an intelligent item making a very good combat character or spellcaster (except in the case of a dancing weapon that can therefore wield itself or something that includes movable hands for somatic components)

HOWEVER, I can see no reason why an intelligent item would not make a passable psion (or ardent or divine mind)

EDIT:
An expert specializing in knowledge skills would also be plausible

EDIT:
So would a warlock retooled to use only verbal components instead of only somatic components

[goto124]

I want to see a frying pan look for a date with a 'pansexual', while everyone else tries to remind it that the word does not mean what it think it means.

Sunder rules on a sapient weapon would be wuite interesting...

[Knaight]

I can see this working; I've run games with odder things which worked just fine. With that said, it's an inappropriate PC for a lot of campaigns, settings, systems, etc.

[IntelectPaladin]

I want to see a frying pan look for a date with a 'pansexual', while everyone else tries to remind it that the word does not mean what it think it means.

Sunder rules on a sapient weapon would be wuite interesting...

Dear gosh on high, What hath mine post wrought..

[Bohandas]

Now - that could be interesting, though I don't think it could be slapped onto a current system - the system would have to be designed with it in mind from the ground up.

Out of combat the 'weapons' would normally be in human form, only switching to weapon form for combat. While in human form, they're much more fragile than their wielder, but they gain huge defense/DR/hardness (or whatever - depends upon the system) when in weapon form.

The in-combat movement controlled entirely by the wielder. The system might work best with opposed combat rolls rather than static defenses, the wielder and weapon trading off which was doing offense depending upon the situation. Both having their own special abilities, but the most powerful moves being when both wielder & weapon work together, perhaps with a defensive disadvantage.

I believe there's a template vaguelt like that in Towers Of High Sorcery. Dealing with weapons with a humanoid alternate form at any rate.

There is, IIRC, also a caste of Yugoloth detailed in an issue of Dragon Magazine that take the form of living swords

[Bohandas]

Perhaps, but when a bard wants to go and do something other than buff people, like, for example, read a book, he has the ability to do so.

The more expensive intelligent items can read. Failing that you could always dump skill points into speak language.

[Keltest]

The more expensive intelligent items can read. Failing that you could always dump skill points into speak language.

Read, sure. But turning pages is problematic.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Read, sure. But turning pages is problematic.

Find a way to use Mage Hand or a psionic equivalent at-will, or maybe you dream of having hands of your own, maybe even a whole construct body!

[DarkestKnight]

The Fiend of Possession PRC could help create a pseudo-sentient weapon, though it's a tricky class to enter and not everyone is a fan. If there are limitations that PC's have to able to operate individually (as mentioned in an earlier post) you can be a person, but you'd rather hang out in someone's sword.

[meschlum]

You might consider the French game Bloodlust, in which players are indestructible magic weapons that experience the world through their wielders. They are not capable of independent movement, but grant fairly awesome powers to their holders. This makes wells and deep oceans a source of utter terror on their part, of course.

Starting characters are built as weapon wielders, who have awesome powers by virtue of owning one of the weapons (any weapon makes its wielder hard to hurt, for instance). As the character has adventures and experiences things, the weapon feeds off the emotions and grows more powerful. You go on to playing the weapon instead, going through similar and disposable wielders as you work towards your goals (remember - taking prisoners means you have more bodies to possess later on!). And finally, when the weapon is very powerful and has found a wielder tough enough to survive and exult in the power it possesses, the two merge into a synergistic nightmare (for others).

Do note that the setting and theme are highly Metal, often NSFW, and that the mechanics are old and heavily table dependent (random powers and lookup tables for combat styles are the main symptoms).