Re: OOTS #1298 - The Discussion Thread
Depends on what mechanism it uses; Teleport doesn't work over planar boundaries. It's unlikely that we'll be getting another case of the Greenhilt Blade getting lost though; that's the entire point of that ability. So it probably would return from across planes, barring antimagic or specific countermeasures against teleportation.
(This does mean that it might not return if there's multi-dimensional stone between him and the sword in theory, but if there's a gap the sword could fit through it'd probably teleport through there anyways.)
Re: OOTS #1298 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brian 333
Ownership is more than grabbing an item and saying, "This is mine." Otherwise, bank robbers are not really stealing, they are simply claiming ownership.
Is there any more than that? Dogs seem to me to understand that level of ownership. I'm not saying it will stand up in court of law, but it seems to me that courts of law imply that the state owns the right of ownership within that state.
Re: OOTS #1298 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brian 333
What is the range on "pwok"?
Even if the dragon teleports to The Abyss, Roy should be able to pwok his sword back. Ownership is more than grabbing an item and saying, "This is mine." Otherwise, bank robbers are not really stealing, they are simply claiming ownership.
What if the bank robbers attune to the comical bag of cash with the dollar sign on the side?
Re: OOTS #1298 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brian 333
What is the range on "pwok"?
The most we've seen yet is: horizontally, a mountain pass plus some travel time by airship; vertically, the altitude of the airship over a mid-level location in some mountainous terrain. Maybe a couple of miles/kilometers?
Re: OOTS #1298 - The Discussion Thread
Narratively it’s plausible that it’d have effectively infinite range and bypassing anything that doesn’t specifically shut down either teleportation or magic.
Re: OOTS #1298 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
danielxcutter
Narratively it’s plausible that it’d have effectively infinite range and bypassing anything that doesn’t specifically shut down either teleportation or magic.
From it falling overboard before, it clearly doesn't need line of effect, at any rate.
Re: OOTS #1298 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
danielxcutter
Depends on what mechanism it uses; Teleport doesn't work over planar boundaries. It's unlikely that we'll be getting another case of the Greenhilt Blade getting lost though; that's the entire point of that ability. So it probably would return from across planes, barring antimagic or specific countermeasures against teleportation.
More to the point, whether it can teleport across planes may just be a moot point anyway. How does it get to one plane, while Roy is on another? Only one of two ways:
1. Someone other than Roy tries to gate with it to another plane. I'd rule the sword, since it is attuned to Roy, refuses to travel with that person (probably just immediately Pwok's to Roy at that point).
2. Roy drops his sword while in one plane, and is gated to another. This could happen, maybe. Pretty contrived set of circumstances. I would assume that if Roy was traveling across planes and aware/awake at that moment, he could just call his sword to him, and it could come along with him. But yeah. If Roy travels to another plane, and somehow leaves his sword behind, he'd have to go back and get it maybe. It's also possible that the sword would just automatically come to him, anytime he crosses a planar boundary (to avoid this exact situation). That's a big maybe though.
But yeah. I'd assume it could not itself travel across planes. Nothing to say an item like this could not do that, but... form/function... it's a sword. Probably not.
Re: OOTS #1298 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wintermoot
What if the bank robbers attune to the comical bag of cash with the dollar sign on the side?
Then that is entirely different, of course. Since the Greenhilt Sword is a Weapon of Legacy, I'm betting that one must be a descendant of Horace Greenhilt to attune it. That leaves Julia and potentially also unnamed siblings of Eugene and their progeny able to successfully steal the sword.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
halfeye
Is there any more than that? Dogs seem to me to understand that level of ownership. I'm not saying it will stand up in court of law, but it seems to me that courts of law imply that the state owns the right of ownership within that state.
The State does not own the right of ownership, they own the right of retaliation and retribution. Laws fixed in place regarding ownership exist so that people do not kill each other over property.
Buying into a legal system is important, because before Law, killing anyone who stood in your way was okay. Then their family and friends could kill you. Then your family and friends could kill them. And so on. Even if you don't like a particular law, it is best to buy into the system as a whole so that you can be alive to change the law to something more reasonable.
Re: OOTS #1298 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brian 333
Then that is entirely different, of course. Since the Greenhilt Sword is a Weapon of Legacy, I'm betting that one must be a descendant of Horace Greenhilt to attune it. That leaves Julia and potentially also unnamed siblings of Eugene and their progeny able to successfully steal the sword.
A) Weapons of Legacy are generally not bound to bloodlines. To gain use of one, you instead need to retrace its history and symbolically live through.
B) Even if it were bloodline based, as Roy is the one who's currently making it into a Weapon of Legacy, I'd assume that it would be bound to Roy's descendents, not Horace's.
Re: OOTS #1298 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tzardok
A) Weapons of Legacy are generally not bound to bloodlines. To gain use of one, you instead need to retrace its history and symbolically live through.
B) Even if it were bloodline based, as Roy is the one who's currently making it into a Weapon of Legacy, I'd assume that it would be bound to Roy's descendents, not Horace's.
A: Certainly not all Legacies are family-oriented, but this one's history is as a family heirloom.
B: An interesting point, but see above. Absent that history, it's just another sword. Roy could not buy a new sword and make it the Greenhilt Great sword, (though his heirs might.)
Re: OOTS #1298 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tzardok
A) Weapons of Legacy are generally not bound to bloodlines. To gain use of one, you instead need to retrace its history and symbolically live through.
B) Even if it were bloodline based, as Roy is the one who's currently making it into a Weapon of Legacy, I'd assume that it would be bound to Roy's descendents, not Horace's.
Roy is currently waking it up, so to speak. And he was responsible for having it reforged as a starmetal sword, which may well be a factor. But it goes back in the family at least as far as Horace's father. It might be possible for other descendants of Horace's father (or even for Horace's father himself, if he came back) to be attuned to it.
Re: OOTS #1298 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bunsen_h
Roy is currently waking it up, so to speak. And he was responsible for having it reforged as a starmetal sword, which may well be a factor. But it goes back in the family at least as far as
Horace's father. It might be possible for other descendants of Horace's father (or even for Horace's father himself, if he came back) to be attuned to it.
Not every ancestral weapon is a Weapon of Legacy. For example, the Giant explicitely stated that these abilities didn't exist before Roy started forging a mystical connection to his sword (answer post 3).
Roy is not waking it up, he is making it. In later generations, students of Weapons of Legacy will know it as the Sword of Roy Greenhilt, and symbolically recreate his adventures to wake its powers up. They may remember that he took up the family sword at the start of his journey, but they won't care about earlier wielders, and history is likely to just forget them.
Re: OOTS #1298 - The Discussion Thread
Considering one of the reasons that Roy cares about his sword is because of his family's history of using it and that contributed to it becoming a Weapon of Legacy, I'd say the previous owners do have a decent chance of not being completely forgotten. Horace at very least.
Re: OOTS #1298 - The Discussion Thread
The sword comes with a story. Absent that story, it is just another sword. Legacy items require the legacy part in order to be "made into" legacy items.
If Roy had not begun with a family heirloom, he would not now have the ability to create a Weapon of Legacy with it. Without the passing from generation to generation down a family line, and without the family name literally being the name of the sword, Roy would have nothing.
Now, that is not to say that Lord Brytol's Sword could not become a Legacy item for some would-be warlord bent on conquest. That's a different story. And if Roy had found it, he might have adapted that legend to create a weapon of legacy based not on conquest, but on martial and strategic excellence.
But the Greenhilt Greatsword is a family heirloom, and if I were the DM, I'd rule it no more than a masterwork, (or +2 after the starmetal,) sword for anyone who is not a descendant of the Greenhilt family.
You are free to disagree and rule otherwise, as is, of course, the author.
Re: OOTS #1298 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brian 333
But the Greenhilt Greatsword is a family heirloom, and if I were the DM, I'd rule it coli more than a masterwork, (or +2 after the starmetal,) sword for anyone who is Renta a descendant of the Greenhilt family.
You are free to disagree and rule otherwise, as is, of course, the author.
Wadya Trina sae?
Re: OOTS #1298 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
halfeye
Wadya Trina sae?
I'm not sure what a Renta is, but autoincorrect has been making very strange 'corrections' lately. It gives me such optimism for the AI revolution when we submit our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor in trust eternally to our digital superiors.
I intended 'not a', but I was obviously wrong. And coli has begun to appear 5 or 4 times a post. I suppose I should find out what it means so I can use it properly.
Re: OOTS #1298 - The Discussion Thread
Also, she has a name. Using it might have helped. Then again you're threatening people I like, why would I want you to be helped?
Re: OOTS #1298 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brian 333
And coli has begun to appear 5 or 4 times a post. I suppose I should find out what it means so I can use it properly.
Well, there's E. coli, the bacterial species.
Re: OOTS #1298 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bunsen_h
Well, there's
E. coli, the bacterial species.
Broccoli also.
Fun fact: our puppy likes to get into Mrs. Starmast's garden and nibble on the broccoli plant's leaves. I guess he needs the ruffage.
Re: OOTS #1298 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KorvinStarmast
Broccoli also.
Fun fact: our puppy likes to get into Mrs. Starmast's garden and nibble on the broccoli plant's leaves. I guess he needs the ruffage.
A valiant effort.
- M