D&D 5E 5th Edition: How to Make My DM Cry

Beleriphon

Totally Awesome Pirate Brain
Something like gauntlets of Ogre Power will most likely require one of your 3 attunement slots. The other 2 will likely be armour and weapon. While this does leave you almost as strong as the fighter who has put everything into his STR stat to get it to 20 he has an open attunement slot for something else.

Depends, +1 weapons and armour don't require attunement. Can't comment on high bonused weapons or armour though. Either way, Gauntlets of Ogre Power don't exactly break a game any more than a strength 20 fighter is going to.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Depends, +1 weapons and armour don't require attunement. Can't comment on high bonused weapons or armour though. Either way, Gauntlets of Ogre Power don't exactly break a game any more than a strength 20 fighter is going to.

We're not saying they do. < Q voice > Do try to keep up, Bond! </ Q voice > ;)

What is being pointed out is that they are problematic in that getting 18+ STR is a pretty big investment in 5E (unless you were hellaciously lucky with the rolls), and GoOP give another PC power almost equal to that pretty extreme for a single magic item. I doubt that there will be any other items that allow you to, in a single bound, leap to or exceed another PC's nigh-max stat (unless of course it's Belts of Giant Strength!).

That said, GoOP isn't the most extreme item in the standard D&D catalogue, and I suspect a lot of broken stuff in 5E may well come from items. It sure did in 2E. And people will relentlessly blame the DMs who allow them, just like in 2E. Oh well.
 

Beleriphon

Totally Awesome Pirate Brain
We're not saying they do. < Q voice > Do try to keep up, Bond! </ Q voice > ;)

Yes sir.

That said, GoOP isn't the most extreme item in the standard D&D catalogue, and I suspect a lot of broken stuff in 5E may well come from items. It sure did in 2E. And people will relentlessly blame the DMs who allow them, just like in 2E. Oh well.

I see what you're saying now. I never had that much of a problem with magic items in AD&D 2E, but I did tend to play more than DM. Admittedly when I first DM'd I gave out those books that increased stats to a bunch of level four adventures so maybe I didn't have a good feel for items. :hmm: Even still, I'm not entirely sure that the game is going to be broken by magic items at high levels. If the starter set is any indication wands seem to be usable by anybody that cares to pick them up, and other items set a particular function of a character to point X (for example: boots of striding and spring set speed to 30 feet per round and add a bonus to how far the character can jump). If most items follow this style, then I don't think it will be that big of a deal.

If it is in the form of items though, that's a whole lot easier to control since the game's math doesn't assume magic items to be functional. If that's the case then the DM just needs to be made aware of how powerful an item, or set of items, might be so they can make judgement about what they want to use. I suppose that sounds like you're complaint, but I guess what I'd like to see is a sidebar like Mutant and Masterminds uses that basically tells the DM "Hey, this is stupidly powerful for players to use. We've included for completeness and the fact that it can be fun to use, but be aware that it can be a game break".
 
Last edited:

I see what you're saying now. I never had that much of a problem with magic items in AD&D 2E, but I did tend to play more than DM. Admittedly when I first DM'd I gave out those books that increased stats to a bunch of level four adventures so maybe I didn't have a good feel for items. :hmm: Even still, I'm not entirely sure that the game is going to be broken by magic items at high levels. If the starter set is any indication wands seem to be usable by anybody that cares to pick them up, and other items set a particular function of a character to point X (for example: boots of striding and spring set speed to 30 feet per round and add a bonus to how far the character can jump). If most items follow this style, then I don't think it will be that big of a deal.

Well, I agree, it remains to be seen.

If it is in the form of items though, that's a whole lot easier to control since the game's math doesn't assume magic items to be functional.

That's both true and completely false! :)

On a simple level, it's true that it's very easy to control in that if you know or suspect that an item is trouble, you can prevent PCs getting it, because as they aren't working into the system, there will never be an assumption that they can get it on the part of the system (unlike 3E, fr'ex).

On a more complex level, it's completely false, because when magic items aren't assumed to be functional, and there aren't clear guidelines on how powerful they should be, nor clear indications of how powerful they are, but rather they just exist independently of all that (as in 2E), then it's much easier for a DM to think any item is fine, or that it will be harmless, and to then find that the PCs have come up with a really cunning plan to leverage it in some outrageous way (ironically enough, it's rarely plus-based magic items like weapons/armour which are the issue, normally utility oriented ones, or easily recharged or infinite charge use-based items). The amount of trouble a Portable Hole, for example, caused me as a DM in 2E (mostly fun stuff but not all of it!) was pretty huge.

Indeed, thinking back to 2E, think of the most optimized and overpowered PCs, the trouble they caused absolutely PALED in comparison to the trouble clever PCs with magic items caused. If we're talking time wasted looking up rules, arguing over how things worked, or adventures entirely derailed, I can think of zero examples from "optimized PCs" (in D&D - and excluding high-level Mages - games like Cyberpunk 2020 are different matter entirely), even though I dealt with some serious ones, but soooooo maaaaany from magic items! :)

So hence my suspicion. We shall see though!
 

Eirikrautha

First Post
I didn't realize feats were optional in 3E? I figured everybody took them when they were available. And, what's to stop a DM from creating bad guys who use the same feats?

and, if you're a DM whose every encounter can get stopped by one solitary grappler, you needed to re-design your encounters. The grappler never faced ranged foes? Or, how about size Huge or bigger foes? How about oozes? How about a foe with poison claws and/or bite? Not one rogue who attempted melee was doused in oil of slipperiness? Or, a foe that can teleport at will, or turn to gaseous form? Would this super grappler be wiling to grapple a vampire and get his or her levels drained? Or, a mummy and get infected with mummy rot? How about an incorporeal foe? A wizard using the Blur spell? Heck, how about some archers from across a river of lava? or, from an elevated position?

It's been five years since my 3.5E campaign ended, but those were just off the top of my head. (I remember the oil specifically, because I had an encounter stopped by a summoned lion pouncing on a mage and everybody on here was stunned that the evil mage didn't have oil of slipperiness on himself beforehand, as it gives you an auto +20 to escape artist checks...)

(o) ===> Trees ||| Forest

Sorry, but I wasn't asking for specific advice on how to counter a grappling character. I was addressing the general effect of feats to create a numerical and mechanical barrier between "haves" and "have nots" and the limits this places on player creativity. An idea your post didn't really respond to...

Edit -- My response sounds snarky now that I re-read it, which was not my intent. My basic objections to feats come from the fact that they limit character choices at the same time that they give bonuses. This is true for almost all feats... Not just grappling...
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top