|
Post by kwickpick on Dec 3, 2012 20:16:07 GMT -8
Hey guys, I just wanted to take a moment and correct you on a subject that I heard quite a lot, having finished the backlog since July. Drizzt's scimitars are not fire and ice. Icingdeath, named after the dragon who's hoard he found the scimitar in is a frost brand. Twinkle, is a defender blade, so named due to the soft glow it gives off when unsheathed. I understand that you guys use this example in order to taunt the munchkins, but as a fan of the Drizzt books I have to disagree with this usage. When I began playing D&D way back in the day, magical weapons would either have a name or a backstory of some renown NPC that once wielded them. That is where D&D lost me in 3rd and 4th edition, magical items became so mundane. Anyway, just thought I would give my 2cp.
Kwickpick
|
|
|
Post by inflatus on Dec 3, 2012 21:30:23 GMT -8
My Scimitars are named Spunk and Nut Sack!
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Dec 4, 2012 7:31:16 GMT -8
The only Drizzt books I read were the three prequels: Homeland, Exile and something or other.
In those, he just has two scimitars with no names. The fancy blades get acquired in later books I assume.
|
|
|
Post by malifer on Dec 4, 2012 8:03:01 GMT -8
I understand that you guys use this example in order to taunt the munchkins, but as a fan of the Drizzt books I have to disagree with this usage. In the backlog you may have noticed some people on the podcast have already mentioned this. But no one gave a shit. As a Drizzt hater, I say carrying on good sirs. Fire and Ice it stands. The internets told me so.
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Dec 4, 2012 9:53:37 GMT -8
Actually, Stu, the fancy blades get acquired in earlier books that were published. Since he acquired them in the first 3 books ever to have Drizzt in it, he obviously didn't have him in the prequels.
I didn't read anything beyond the first 2 trilogies (Icewind Dale and those prequels) so I am unsure if anything changed after that.
on a side note a wand should be named spunk and a bag of holding named nutsack,
One last thing I wanted to comment on. The whole idea that 3.5 is where the magic items got mundane is total bullshit. There were many more generic magic items with no name than there were named items. Just randomly pick a letter of the Alphabet and read through that series (B, I, A, etc.) and you will see that's the case.
Now, if you had an awesome GM who insisted on naming every magic item, that's great, but you can do the same thing in every edition.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Dec 4, 2012 10:28:02 GMT -8
My first ed. DMG has *some* named items. Baba Yaga's hut comes to mind. But there were also a lot of +1 Swords, etc.
Fourth ed. had a couple of treasure books that had wondrous items, which (if I'm remembering correctly) were named, had some stories attached to them and were associated with other items.
But I imagine much item naming is the work of a good GM.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Dec 4, 2012 17:02:09 GMT -8
The named items were Artifacts and very special indeed . . . Unique and powerful with names like The Machine of Lum the Mad which were also of more burdens to own/use than boons Aaron
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Dec 21, 2012 9:51:44 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by rickno7 on Dec 21, 2012 15:41:50 GMT -8
|
|