D&D 5E Rise of Tiamat Supplement is online

[SilverfireSage]

First not an issue in the games I run, I will just never hand them out. Great thing about magic items that you don't like as a DM just don't have them in your campaign world.

In the games I play I find them horrible.

Strength based character, spends ability increases to boost his strength to a 20. Say he starts with a 16, that takes him two of his increases, that he could have spent on another ability like Con or gotten two nice feats that would give him more options. The party acquires a belt of hill giant strength, it goes to the cleric or other melee type and the fighter feels jipped he didn't take those feats or Con points because if would have taken them he would be best served by the belt.
Now the same party instead finds a belt of frost giant strength, it goes to the fighter and sure he is happy for the extra +1 to hit and damage, until he realizes he still wasted those ability score increases, if he had chosen feats and his strength was still a 16 the belt would still give him the same bonus.

Finding a magic item should never make you regret your previous choices, especially if those choices can not be undone.

But in the end, I find strength build characters boring and mostly play dex focused or spellcasters so I doubt I will ever feel like I wasted my ability score increases, just feel bad for those who do.

I've seen this argued in other threads about the same thing and I've just never found it to be true. Most of my players enjoy playing as a team, and are excited when someone else gets to contribute more in an area they normally couldn't. The great thing about this edition is that there are so many other ways that the two purely strength based characters can differentiate themselves, through class features and the like, that simply having a better strength won't automatically make them redundant. Yeah, a cleric can now have an extra +2 to attack and damage, but that would be true if you gave them a better magic item as well, and a fighter will still be better in a battle because they get extra attacks, have more hit points, have more feats, can use their marital archetypes, etc. Except now, they don't have to keep as much of an eye on the cleric since he can hold his own weight.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I've seen this argued in other threads about the same thing and I've just never found it to be true. Most of my players enjoy playing as a team, and are excited when someone else gets to contribute more in an area they normally couldn't. The great thing about this edition is that there are so many other ways that the two purely strength based characters can differentiate themselves, through class features and the like, that simply having a better strength won't automatically make them redundant. Yeah, a cleric can now have an extra +2 to attack and damage, but that would be true if you gave them a better magic item as well, and a fighter will still be better in a battle because they get extra attacks, have more hit points, have more feats, can use their marital archetypes, etc. Except now, they don't have to keep as much of an eye on the cleric since he can hold his own weight.

Yeah, I second this. I don't get the POV that a player was screwed in this situation. Give it to another melee pc and the party is stronger for it.

 

[Paraxis]

I've seen this argued in other threads about the same thing and I've just never found it to be true. Most of my players enjoy playing as a team, and are excited when someone else gets to contribute more in an area they normally couldn't. The great thing about this edition is that there are so many other ways that the two purely strength based characters can differentiate themselves, through class features and the like, that simply having a better strength won't automatically make them redundant. Yeah, a cleric can now have an extra +2 to attack and damage, but that would be true if you gave them a better magic item as well, and a fighter will still be better in a battle because they get extra attacks, have more hit points, have more feats, can use their marital archetypes, etc. Except now, they don't have to keep as much of an eye on the cleric since he can hold his own weight.

It's not about jealousy of the cleric getting the belt, it is about regret that your choices to increase strength were bad ones. Because if you had taken feats or Con points instead the fighter would be the one with the belt and those feats or Con points.

What it is going to do is make increasing strength one of the worst choices in the game, stay with your starting strength score and just take feats.

The belt worked OK in AD&D because you didn't have your character build choices trivialized.

But this has been talked to death, and I doubt we will cover any new ground here, why not talk about how great the Driftglobe is, first time I remember seeing it and it is a cool interesting item and with some creative thought could be very fun, to me the Driftglobe is 'magical'.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yeah, I second this. I don't get the POV that a player was screwed in this situation. Give it to another melee pc and the party is stronger for it.

Yep. I don't know a single person I played AD&D with over the past 35 years who got a belt of giant strength or gauntlets of ogre power and felt cheated because when they created their character, they put a high value into STR, or felt cheated because another PC would gain a better benefit.

 

[Paraxis]

Yep. I don't know a single person I played AD&D with over the past 35 years who got a belt of giant strength or gauntlets of ogre power and felt cheated because when they created their character, they put a high value into STR, or felt cheated because another PC would gain a better benefit.

Because in those 35 years, the characters never had to choose between increasing strength or another ability score or taking a feat.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The belt worked OK in AD&D because you didn't have your character build choices trivialized.
'.

No, it's no different. In AD&D, you still chose what order to place your stats in (in the most common methods). 5e gives extra stat bonuses during the game, but they are both the same in that you choose to place your stat values, so the basis of your argument (getting an item makes the choice of allocating a stat moot) is true in both scenarios.

 

[CM]

The only item I think is problematic are the gauntlets of ogre power (assuming they will grant 19 Strength), since that score is attainable through normal means. It seems counter-intuitive that a strong warrior can put on magic strength gloves and get no benefit from them.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The only item I think is problematic are the gauntlets of ogre power (assuming they will grant 19 Strength), since that score is attainable through normal means. It seems counter-intuitive that a strong warrior can put on magic strength gloves and get no benefit from them.

"I'm as strong as an ogre. Let me put on these gauntlets that make me as strong as an ogre. Hmmm...I don't feel any different."

That's not counter intuitive at all. In fact, that makes total sense.

 

[ranger69]

The group I play/DM in normally gives magic items to the character who can use the item the best. So the Belt of Giant Strength would not necessarily go to the fighter. Also magic items can be destroyed or stolen. Anti-magic fields can negthate magic items, so the fighter increasing his strength is wise as he may have to use no magic.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

A player should not assume that he will ever get a belt of giants strength IMO. Sure some editions assume that player x will have certain items but it appears that is not the default assumption in 5e. Which I love!

Flexor, my old 1e Fighter had a 18/100 strength. I didn't feel cheated by him not getting any use of the Gauntlets of Ogre power. He let one of the little girly men use it. And we never found any belts of giants strength if I recall correctly. Flexor didn't believe in cheating anyway and disdained those who needed to juice.