Legendary weapons

[hollowcrown]

A weapon doesn't need to do +614,2 fire damage and give you the aura of awesomeness to be "legendary". Sometimes it's just its name and the story behind it that makes it special. Besides, aren't some of these "uber" gadgets over the top?

The Equaliser and Vorpal Sword in BG2 weren't particularly powerful or OP, but because of the arduous exploring and questing and tough battles required to forge them, they seemed like really special weapons and were staples of my party's arsenal.

[rjshae]

A weapon doesn't need to do +614,2 fire damage and give you the aura of awesomeness to be "legendary". Sometimes it's just its name and the story behind it that makes it special. Besides, aren't some of these "uber" gadgets over the top?

 

A weapon needs to "do something extra" to make it special. Even if that something is just an improvement to your reputation.

[Messier-31]

A weapon needs to "do something extra" to make it special. Even if that something is just an improvement to your reputation.

 

True, something that bolsters up the skills or damage is to be expected - especially in a cRPG. But was Narsil (later reforged as Andúril) a sword made out of kryptonite? It just so happens to be a sword, that was used by the sons of Gondor in the war against Sauron. No strings attached. But that's a different story, so, umm... nevermind

[injurai]

I think legendary weapons would be neat. In the way that we have historical relics, or how bilbo found the elven swords in the troll cave. I do however feel that they shouldn't be uber stat-saturated item that takes away from other aspects of the game such as skill planning and strategy. It would be neat to have these relics as being degraded, and you can somehow reforge them or extract some essences out of them to bolster another weapon.

 

These essences, or alloys could be pivotal aspects of some neat character builds. This way it augments the player freedom instead of being merely a vehicle to overcome stat barriers.

[Karkarov]

Legendary weapons in PE?  NO

Guys, this is the first game in what is meant to be a new ip and have a sequel.  We even know we are going to be level capped in this one.  Why should a guy who ends the game as the equivalent of a level 8-10 D&D character have a "legendary" weapon?

 

Also Excalibur was a magical sword dudes, while Arthur is definitely the more important piece Excalibur could cut through any armor and made his attacks land with far greater strength than they would have if it was just him swinging say.... the Sword in the Stone.  It was also a symbol of his virtue and all that other stuff, cause it had to be given to him since he was worthy of it and any other knight could not have it etc etc.

 

Due to some posters being.... yeah...  I am going to get slightly more specific on the "no" potion of my post.  Varscona was a cool sword from Baldur's Gate, to me it was special cause it was the first named weapon I ever found in those games.  It had a little history to it I guess, and that was nice.  It however was not "legendary".  Legendary implies it has more than history, that it is well known, that little bobby on the street got read stories about this weapon by his dad at bedtime.  Legendary says this sword was used to kill the Dragon that ate half the Dyrwood, that it was a sword given to a champion by a god themselves, not that it is a axe with a neat story where one time it was used to take out a regular werewolf back in the day.

 

Any weapon can have a neat history, but a neat history doesn't make it "legendary".

Edited October 28, 2013 by Karkarov

[Lephys]

You know... most legends are based on some simpler truth.

 

While I agree that "legendary" is generally used much like "epic" nowadays in gaming terminology. But, the regular definition of "legendary" applies to a lot of stuff that isn't necessarily chocked full of PC-uberizing properties.

[JFSOCC]

stuff of legends, and legends are easily made in a culture of story-tellers.

[J.E. Sawyer]

I don't know how I feel about legendary weapons.

For one, I don't think we would have known about Excalibur if King Arthur never found it, it's the knight that makes the sword famous, not vice versa.

Nor do I like the legendary weapons in Baldurs Gate II, since they were very class specific.

 

On the other hand, Epic loot, of course, why the hell not? As long as it doesn't break the game, having really cool weapons is fine by me.

I prefer to have weapons be legendary narratively rather than in item strength. The old IE games were pretty good at giving items backstories even if they were 'only' moderately powerful, and I think that's the way to go.

 

When only a few items are considered legendary, then taking those items becomes a no-brainer. I kind of prefer to have or grow an attachment to my weapons, but that can't happen if they are objectively inferior to other found] weapons. It'll become just a numbers game at that point.

 

This is why I'm worried about the crafting skill. I would have preferred to have very modular weapons which you can personalise.

 

That said, I see no reason why both these options couldn't exist next to eachother.

 

Like I said, I'm a bit conflicted.

 

You will find unique named weapons, but you will also be able to modify weapons with properties that you prefer.  We no longer have a Crafting skill, but you can add special properties to weapons and armor through the crafting system.

[Tsuga C]

^ Very good to know. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

A mythical sword that never existed... never did anything? Imagine that.

 

 

I had a character in tabletop who fought with a (false) legend of a sword. A somewhat planescape-y idea, but pretty cool nonetheless, I think.

 

On a different note, a weapon forged from a special soul-sensitive metal or specifically enchanted to bind itself to its owner's soul somehow, which would gain different bonuses depending on your personality/deeds/signature attacks would also be rather nifty.

Edited October 29, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid