DMG Preview 4: Artifacts!

I'm not super fond of the art for the dragonorb. It looks more-knick-knack and less crystal-ball.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I understand your perspective, and of course the whole point of artifacts like this is so that you can connect the PCs to a larger story, in the way you want. I would probably run it similarly; the player might get visions offering clues to what Vecna wants accomplished.

I think as a player I would enjoy the dynamic created by the flat probability, though. How can I know whether my actions are in line with Vecna's desires? Maybe I think I'm spreading evil but really I'm interfering with one of his more subtle plots. And from a gamist perspective, every time I use the Eye I risk my life. Am I never going to use it? Not likely. But every time the chips are down, and I'm tempted to use the Eye, the game has created an edge-of-the-seat moment. It's not everyone's cup of tea, obviously, but it is in line with a "let the dice fall where they may" attitude toward gaming, where getting a PC to high level takes luck as well as skill, and is not guaranteed. That's the kind of game I prefer as a player.

Of course, as a player I would never attune the Eye. But hey, what if some evil cultists kidnapped my PC and implanted it by force? Then I'm stuck with it.

As I DM, however, I would never introduce the Eye without also giving the players a way to learn that the 5% risk exists.

I'd never tell them what there specifics are, but I'd make the information available that messing with magic of this nature can be very fatal one way or another. And I'd love it as a player too, an artifact should not be a simply more powerful magic item, it should be exotic and full of potential drawbacks for mortal who dare mess with mighty powers they cannot fully understand.

 

[SilverfireSage]

First and foremost I don't go into every thread complaining about the same topic. I make a critique or observation that is negative about something I don't like, but the overall game is good or I would not run it and play it.

The point is to be honest, some things are not perfect. If all people do is hear positive feedback they won't know what they did wrong. It seems sometimes any criticism is seen as pure unthinking hatred, when it is exactly the opposite. If I didn't enjoy the game I wouldn't care.

You are correct, criticism is certainly warranted and should be put against the book. But when you post 9 times in three threads about how lazy the designers are and how disappointed you are, it starts becoming more of a pattern. You should be allowed to criticize, of course, but your criticism has amounted to attacks on the work ethic of the designers and little on the book itself. It might be good to take a step back, ask yourself why they did something the way they did and then post your criticism of you still think it's valid.

 

[MoutonRustique]

While I understand that artifacts are supposed to be something else (as opposed to "just a magic item"), a flat chance to simply loose your character seems a poor choice on design. Also, break on a hit from a +3 weapon? Unimpressive.

I'm (quite possibly) overly annoyed when the write-ups and the stats don't line-up. (ex: Dragon Orb - no measure of dragon control anywhere in the given powers while it is alluded to in the descriptive text.) And... well, it really bothers me.

The write-ups are good (Not to my taste, but I can see that others like them.)

As to the art - I am of those that appreciate the presence of illustrations for everything. It's not that I like all of them, but they give ideas and will save me (on the whole) a good deal of time I'd otherwise browse deviantart or something. From what we've seen, there are a few "discrepancies" between the descriptions and the illustrations - same as for stats, this is an irritant.

For me, on the whole, a very solid : "Meh."

I'm hoping the suggestions on game pacing, encounter building, magic item handling (creating? hopefully) are solid (I'm still confident they will be.) But as of yet, these previews do not make me yearn for my DMG.

... so I guess I'll need one of those "buzz killington awards" also.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

You like the game how you like it, nothign wrong with that. I love the idea from my PC's POV that "If I try to harness the power of this thing it may just consume me...do I dare it?" I don't like the perfect regularity of D&D style magic that much and like more danger. But that's just me. Of course having that possibility with some trinket would just be stupid.

 

[Jarrod]

* the new mechanics are crappy. It shows most with the artifacts : the removal of the clever building up frameworks introduced with 4e is a terrible shame. Where are skill challenges, disease tracks and artifact tracks when you most need them ? Neither as a player nor a DM would I seriously consider using/introducing this Eye of Vecna : flat 5% of losing a PC forever to use Clairvoyance is silly. It tells the story of a DMG written on a budget, leaving large gaps in the DM toolbox. Fortunately for WotC, I like the rest of 5e so much that I am looking forward to the Unearthed Arcana which is inevitably coming to fill the holes !

Given that Acererererererak (the other arch-lich) was actively seeking for powerful characters to devour their souls and get more powerful, I see Vecna doing the same. 5% is the chance for him to notice you and say "yummy, there's some good nosh here".

... and then you get to track Vecna down and defeat him to get your buddy's soul back ...