Figure I'd give this another shot

Figure I'd give this another shot.
How would you deal with a player who wants to play an ancient holy sword lifecoaching some peasant?

Hexblade warlock. Now stop reposting it.

depends on the system.

I think they should have to roleplay as the peasant and deal with the mind-control and mental strain etc. Sort of a gollum type situation but maybe give them a little bit of agency over the sword so it isn't just pure chaos

>How would you deal with a player who wants to play an ancient holy sword lifecoaching some peasant?
Run it as a blatant ripoff of the Arthurian legend, see how long it takes the players to call me out.

Tell him to have a NORMAL character as well, not the peasant, and another player does the peasant.

Pic hopefully not too much related.

I'd let them play the peasant and have them write dialogues between the peasant and the sword after the fact.

All the dialogue is stored anyway, so they can refer to it.

>All the dialogue is stored anyway
???

Doesn't sound right to me.
Especially considering how little he uses that sword.
He mostly just loans it to people.

Player gives advice yo peasant.
Depending on roll and degree of persuasion peasant might follow the advice.
Otherwise outright ignore it.

Depending on the roll - the closer to the sweet spot of DC you get the best result.

Anything below is underdone (slower, different direction, less force, etc.)
Anything above DC is overdone.

Advice to strike overhead, with medium force.
So DC is 10. D20 roll of 18 would have peasant strike too strongly and rebound from enemy defense, or fall into the trap riposte.
Roll of 4 would make attack too weak.

Or the simpler solution of him just playing as peasant with a lot of crazy dialogue between sword and peasant.

Best part? Have an enemy of party pick the sword at least once.

Online group. We use voice, but the actual roleplay is text only because we all agreed that none of us can act for peanuts and it was a cringefest.

I wouldn't allow that idea within a five mile radius of my game, because I can just imagine the nightmarish amount of pointless rolling.

In 3.5e, an Intelligent Weapon with +1 every 4 levels, spent as the player chooses, and a Fighter leveling alongside him that is built by the player and controlled by him during combat, but played by the DM.

What if the peasant is in control most times, until he activates the sword and enters he-man mode?

Ha, I've actually seen this before. In a game, one PC played as another player's holy sword. She was the spirit of the maiden bound to the blade, who could sometimes manifest a human form.

She took every chance she could get to cuck him as hard as possible, behind his back.

Whats even the point of roll under roll over, this is retarded both in mechanics and in the fact that you'd have to roll a trillion times for nothing but making the player weaker.

This is why you have a male sword for your peasant man.
That way he plays wingman instead.

Excalibur wasn't anything really special. It was the sheath that was valuable.

>not cucking him even harder by fucking everything female that lays eyes on him

FPBP

People love overcomplicated mechanics.

kys