"straight" rolls in D&D

[CapnZapp]

This seems a lot fairer than you lose your character

On one hand, you are completely right!

On the other, if there is no risk at all, the choice to try it out becomes a no-brainer and there is no real cost.

This is the dilemma...

 

[CapnZapp]

In 1E, Polymorph Other has a process for the target to lose personality. It was checked daily, so you'd want to tone that down or not depending on if the item's use is discretionary.

Other possibilities include 1E's "Swords vs. Characters" check for intelligent weapons.

I will have to check it out!

 

[CapnZapp]

You could run it similar to intelligent items from the DMG where it's a charisma save

If I intended the item for the Sorcerer (Bard, Paladin etc) then yes, absolutely.

But in this case I'm looking for class-neutral challenges.

Visions and quests: thank you.

 

[CapnZapp]

So have them do a side quest, but make it a bit risky. If they succeed, great. They have an awesome item. Fail? They become NPCs and a future nemesis. Let your players decide if it's worth the risk.

That sounds great, except that players very seldom fail things.

Failing a die roll, absolutely.

But failing what effectively is a scenario? What would that mean, if it isn't up to chance. That the party loses a combat? Suddenly the problem becomes avoiding a TPK.

I'm sure there are players that understand and appreciate losses and failure. Not mine though. Not making individual die rolls, yes. But otherwise you can bet they will use every trick available to them to not fail or die trying.

Long-winded reply just to say the suggestion is fine, but possibly not for my players...

 

[Umbran]

For completeness, there's the option of nerfing the item to the point where having a risk of losing your character is no longer called for to balance it.

Or, change the penalty to something that isn't all-or-nothing for the PC. Like, "you get to use the item, but to the general public you get disadvantage on all Charisma based checks..." or the like.

 

[CapnZapp]

Permanent character retirement is even more harsh then save-or-die. The 5e way of handling those seems to be to put in place multiple rolls.

How about this:
Requires attunement. Can not be re-attuned while the being it it attuned to lives.
On use, make a death save. On failure, gain 1 permanent Evil Inclinations mark. When you gain the third, you turn LE and your character is retired.

Optional: Gaining a level and the Wish spell each will remove 1 Evil Inclinations mark - once each. (So not each level gained, just the first after gaining the first EI.)

This gives a mounting sense of tension, but also gives a few "safe" uses which they will likely horde. The chance of happening in exactly 3 uses is a bit less than 15%, but a greater chance over a large number of uses.

You could also grant a -2 to saves vs. charm and fear for each EI mark, or some other occasionally-in-play reminder of the dangers of playing with Evil.

I like your gamist thinking.

Do be aware that death saves are subject to several possible modifications, of which my players are likely aware of more than I myself know of.

Of course if the failure probability after intense min-maxing is around 15% then the joke's on them. (In that case I bow to your superior DnD playing skills!)

 

[CapnZapp]

I will see if I can remember the source, but I DO know there was once some cursed artifacts that if the characters took them, each day the possessor had to make a Wisdom check/save DC 15. With each failure, the DC increased by 1. If they had three failures before three successes (similar to Death saves, maybe where they got the idea even...), they become Chaotic Evil and an NPC. If a character becomes evil, it is a greater story line to try to help them.

Also, as a DM, I allow Lawful Evil characters in my games. They have never been a problem really since Lawful Evil will work with the group and can be convinced to even help out if you present it with the right angle.

Yes I am aware the AL allows LE and that this is not out of the ordinary. In my case however, I'm not too keen on retreating from my ruling from years ago.

Again, since this item is (nearly) equally useful for all characters, I want to avoid challenges some classes find much easier than others (Clerics and Druids in your case).

If the item was meant for only some classes, a specific ability save makes much more sense. Divine casters all have it easy; arcane casters all have it rough. In both cases the chosen mechanism doesn't play favorites, given the intended audience.

But if "every sort of hero" is that audience, as in this case, I would like to avoid keying the challenge to any given ability score (skill, save etc).

 

[CapnZapp]

Maxperson & Umbran: thx for your sub-thread

 

[TwoSix]

As a power-gamer, I wouldn't just be measuring the possibility of character loss; I'd also be looking at the power level delta between my established character and a replacement character. (I could do a lot with a fresh 15th-16th level character!)

If your character replacement rules are generous, feel free to make the risk large. If character replacement is problematic, you need to make the risk smaller and/or demonstrate that fixing the alignment change is a possible avenue to get the players to jump on the item and take on the risk.

 

[ART!]

Limiting the use of magic items to characters of certain classes or alignments is totally a thing D&D does, if that's helpful.