Forums of the Megaverse®

With all the abundance of recent Tattoo Questions this one popped into my head just as I was falling asleep last night:

How do other GM's handle Weapon Covered In Flames:

Do you have the weapon appear covered in flames or do you have it look like a normal mundane version of the weapon that inflicts MD?

I used to be of the former camp but in recent years I shifted over to the latter. Mainly because I thought it was more fitting to the flavor of the Tattoos but also because I liked the idea of someone not being able to tell if the T-User was wielding a normal weapon or an MD weapon.

On the one hand, I like the tattoos to produce exactly what they're depicting. I think it makes for a nice tell when using them against players that are unfamiliar with the full tattoo magic rules. On the other, I don't think the weapon covered in flames and a coiled serpent is really going to conjure a weapon with a snake wrapped around it. I could kind of see describing it as a glowing image of a snake that flickers in and out of existence as the weapon is swung though, so it's not necessarily a deal-breaker for a mostly exact translation from illustration to conjured weapon.

This is one of the time in the game rules where it is time for the Player and GM to come together to talk about what the actual effects are.

I for one like the idea of a flame covered sword being the shape of the magic effect as well as the tattoo picture.

Though I can see that there are minor differences between AT houses' magic sword tattoos.

I agree that it is a perfect discussion for player and GM to work out how it works. That was the route my thoughts were heading in but once ruled for that particular game it should remain that way for all such tattoos in the game rather than a case by case basis.

My solution would be to have the flames and serpent be etched into the weapons and the lines glow with magic (which in my games means the color of the person's alignment.)