Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kinak" data-source="post: 6364333" data-attributes="member: 6694112">I think there's a good game in there, but I'm not sure how items like this fit into it.The attunement limit, frankly, implies a game with a lot of permanent items. Over twenty years of DMing, including several high-level campaigns, I've only run one campaign where that limit would have come into play. But it's possible the DMG will have rules for magic item destruction. It certainly would be a change from the "not even rust monsters destroy stuff" approach of 4e. I know some groups rolled without assigning their stats, but that was never us.Even back then, we were "roll and assign." So, yes, if someone put a decent score into strength, then got a pair of gauntlets, they felt kind of dumb.It's not a huge deal in and of itself, although getting a magical item as a reward and feeling dumb because of it certainly isn't optimal.But, in the process of feeling dumb, they realize that the magical item has more mechanical impact than the choices that defined their character. Maybe that excites some people, but it's certainly not what we were looking for in a game, even back then.I don't think the process of deciding who should get the item makes it cause any less of a problem.Especially with the amulet of health; it really should go to the person with the lowest Con. I know for my players, it wouldn't take long for them to realize that the person with the lowest Con just got bumped up to near the top because they had the lowest Con.It's not going to warp how they build their characters, but I have it admit it feels totally backwards.Cheers!Kinak</blockquote>

Verification