In my opinion, most Weapons of Legacy (as presented in the book) are not worth it; the price to wield one usually overshadows their benefits - unless one builds a custom WoL which benefits counteract its cost.
I like a lot of what I'm hearing I thought that it was unfair if the DM decided to go with his gut on what he thought was the right thing to do but apparently I probably do need to learn to put my foot down when a player begins to overstep his boundaries.
Where that line is is impossible to state, as it differs from group to group and playstyle to playstyle.
Personally, I usually give the rules the highest priority. That doesn't mean a GM cannot step beyond them but that needs to be done / announced beforehand (in the form of houserules, e.g. XP-penalties due to multiclassing don't exist) or must have an in-game reason (which the GM should either explain - preferably in-game, out-game, if necessary - or at least hint at [Yes, I know that's not how the rules work, but there is a reason).
The sudden change of rules mid-game without any
|"No, these weapons cannot be melted down" |
"Why ? Neither detect magic nor identify so much as hinted at that (or anything strange), nor was there any hint of this following my 25-30 spellcraft / knowledge arcana rolls. According to the rules, a magic sword can be melted down, destroying it."
"They don't melt"
or the misunderstanding / misapplication of
|"The acid bolt deals 6d4 points of damage to the cleric. Plus, he takes 2d4 points of damage from the one last round." |
"I roll Spellcraft to identify the spell" *surpasses DC*
"Err... that spells doesn't work that way... it deals 2d4 on the first round, then 2d4 damage on the next x rounds"
"Yes; my character has been using that spell since level 3!"
were a major point between me and my last tabletop GM.
I'm fine with changing rules, but not like that; if the rules are changed (especially for things that the PCs either know or are capable of doing themselves
), the players have to be informed beforehand...