D&D 5E Rise of Tiamat Supplement is online

[JesterOC]

Driftglobe seems broken.

2 Reasons:
1) It references a spell that is not in basic and not in its own spell section (Daylight)
2) It will only follow you if you get beyond 60ft, which means if you are using it to cast the light spell, you are walking around in the dark with a perfectly nice torch following too far behind you.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Except the other melee PC has likely also increased his STR score with is her ability score improvements, or is a dex-based fighter, making the item not worth the attunement.

I think this is highly subjective, not only because it depends on the scenario, but the attitude of the player with that option. You might not think going from an 18 to a 20 is worth attunement, but I do. Also, not every str based melee PC in any group I've ever played with all had maximum strength. An item like that was always useful to someone. And thirdly, even if you have a DEX based melee fighter, having a major bump in strength? Yes please! It would sure help all those times I have to make a STR save or check.

In 1e, you rolled whatever STR you had, and could never get a 20+ Str that way, so the Girdle of Giant Strength always improved your prowess. Here, it's not just a roll, but a continued investment, and that makes the difference.

Not necessarily true. Most methods in AD&D, you didn't just end up with a STR score your rolled. You rolled all six stats, then assigned them. That means you made a choice on what abilities to focus on; which ones to make the investment. That means it's exactly the same as deciding to put your ability bumps in a certain stat insofar as the base argument Paraxis made. I.e., choices on how to build your stats being made moot from an item later on.

And I'm here to say, I don't recall a single situation ever in 35 years where a player felt they were being cheated because they put their highest stat (16) into strength and came across a girdle or gauntlets of ogre power, saying, "If I knew I was getting this, I would have put my 16 into CON instead. I feel cheated."

Not one person.

 

[Eric V]

I don't want to argue, since you seem unwilling to budge on the idea, but a few points of clarification:

1) The first bolded part. It's not subjective that it's likely that the other str-based melee character also pumped his strength score; that's not a statement that the term 'subjective' can be applied to. If you were referring to whether or not the person thinks it's worth it to use of of three attunement slots for a bonus of 1 to attack and damage, well then yes, it's relative to other attunement items being available in the campaign. Compared to other items requiring attunement, however, it's starting to look less subjective, at least mathematically.

2) The second bolded part. Yeah, at that point, it's a nice add-on for str-saves and checks (not a lot of str saves, but whatever). Was the idea for the girdle of giant strength "Boy, it will really help with Athletics?" If so, then it's doing its job well. If you have an idea inspired by Thor, for instance, of putting on his Belt and becoming even stronger than it doesn't work (though it did both things in 3e).

3) Third bolded part. No offense, but that is flat out untrue. It can't be exactly the same unless it is actually exactly the same. 1e is a one-time choice; 5e is a choice made every 4 levels (or more frequently). Investing in a stock once then just living with its performance is very different than revisiting your portfolio and making decisions every x number of years.

4) Your end statement. I'd be surprised if anyone ever said those words too. Doesn't mean they didn't feel it or think them. Besides, the point being made by Paraxis (I believe) is that this is a false dichotomy; a girdle that enhances strength can be a flat score, but a large bonus accomplishes a greater multitude of things, including still being of benefit for the target that, classically speaking, would get the most use out of it.

I think this is highly subjective, not only because it depends on the scenario, but the attitude of the player with that option. You might not think going from an 18 to a 20 is worth attunement, but I do. Also, not every str based melee PC in any group I've ever played with all had maximum strength. An item like that was always useful to someone. And thirdly, even if you have a DEX based melee fighter, having a major bump in strength? Yes please! It would sure help all those times I have to make a STR save or check.



Not necessarily true. Most methods in AD&D, you didn't just end up with a STR score your rolled. You rolled all six stats, then assigned them. That means you made a choice on what abilities to focus on; which ones to make the investment. That means it's exactly the same as deciding to put your ability bumps in a certain stat insofar as the base argument Paraxis made. I.e., choices on how to build your stats being made moot from an item later on.

And I'm here to say, I don't recall a single situation ever in 35 years where a player felt they were being cheated because they put their highest stat (16) into strength and came across a girdle or gauntlets of ogre power, saying, "If I knew I was getting this, I would have put my 16 into CON instead. I feel cheated."

Not one person.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The basis of his argument is exactly the same. You're making a choice on how to distribute your stats to gain the benefits of the respective values you chose to place, and you're encountering an item that makes that choice moot. Saying that it applies in 5e because you have additional choices but doesn't apply in 1e is incredibly disingenuous to the basis of the original argument that was presented.

Items that override player choice of attribute designation is not a new thing at all, and these arguments (I feel cheated because my choices were wasted) hardly ever existed. I would say never, but obviously I can't make that claim with full certainty because I wasn't at everyone's table. This is a relatively new argument, one that I feel reeks of entitlement. First, it assumes that the item was designed for YOU. Just because your group found a girdle, in no way means it's crap if YOUR character can't gain a benefit from it. Secondly, if you already have the strength of an ogre, and find gauntlets of ogre strength, why in God's name would you assume said named gauntlets would make you stronger than an ogre? Thirdly, I get the impression that such arguments seem to imply that magic items should always make the PC better mechanically, or there's some sort of unfairness there. Not every item you find should be better than what you already have.

 

[Eric V]

The basis of his argument is exactly the same. You're making a choice on how to distribute your stats to gain the benefits of the respective values you chose to place, and you're encountering an item that makes that choice moot. Saying that it applies in 5e because you have additional choices but doesn't apply in 1e is incredibly disingenuous to the basis of the original argument that was presented.

No, it isn't. I'd have more sympathy for your position if you had said "similar," but you opted for the more-dramatic-less-accurate "exactly the same." Whatever.

Items that override player choice of attribute designation is not a new thing at all, and these arguments (I feel cheated because my choices were wasted) hardly ever existed. I would say never, but obviously I can't make that claim with full certainty because I wasn't at everyone's table. This is a relatively new argument, one that I feel reeks of entitlement. First, it assumes that the item was designed for YOU. Just because your group found a girdle, in no way means it's crap if YOUR character can't gain a benefit from it. Secondly, if you already have the strength of an ogre, and find gauntlets of ogre strength, why in God's name would you assume said named gauntlets would make you stronger than an ogre? Thirdly, I get the impressing that such arguments seem to imply that magic items should always make the PC better mechanically, or there's some sort of unfairness there. Not every item you find should be better than what you already have.

I am not sure where you are coming with this, other than to surmise you are doing a lot of projection, since I didn't see that in his original argument for the 3e version of said item over the 1e one. From my own perspective, you seem really caught up on the name of the item, which when you think about it, makes no sense at all; I don't believe for a second that every ogre in anyone's campaign world has the exact same score in strength. Instead, from a within-the-game view, I see the item name as flavourful and evocative while not necessarily being mathematically precise. It's just a title for the item after all; I don't get all perplexed when 'Death Spell' doesn't do what its title suggests either.

 

[JesterOC]

If a PC becomes a one trick pony (like a fighter with STR 12 using a girdle of giant strength) enemies will note the issue and try to deal with it. Though anti magic shields are a bit on the high end side, I would expect some level of trickery can be brought to bear upon such a PC. Especially if it is an overtly huge difference from his natural strength and his enhanced strength.

 

[Sacrosanct]

No, it isn't. I'd have more sympathy for your position if you had said "similar," but you opted for the more-dramatic-less-accurate "exactly the same." Whatever.

.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. The basis of his complaint was that choices the player makes on how to assign his or her stats is rendered moot by finding an item that overrides those choices.

In AD&D you choose to assign the values to your stats. In 5e, you do that as well, along with stat bumps (for those that use those). In both cases, the choices you make as a player to assign your stats is being overridden by an item. Therefore, the are both exactly the same in the context of the basis of the original complaint. How many times you modify your stats is irrelevant to the complaint. The point was that player choice is being overridden.

And I'd go so far as to posit that it's ludicrous to imply that the argument doesn't apply to AD&D but does to 5e since clearly in BOTH cases player choice on how to assign values to stats are being overridden. (which is what Paraxis implied earlier).

 

[Eric V]

And if I put a 15 in Str and a 15 in Con? I chose to assign them, and they are the same score (totally plausible with the point buy).

Here's where 5e changes things: when I hit level 4, I have to make an additional decision over which to bump. That is a non-existent decision in 1e. It's more of an investment. It just is. It's multiple chances to elevate the other stat. If you don't think this makes a difference, fine, your perspective. But to say it's "exactly the same" is just factually untrue.

As for the rest, I think you are getting way to hung up on the name.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. The basis of his complaint was that choices the player makes on how to assign his or her stats is rendered moot by finding an item that overrides those choices.

In AD&D you choose to assign the values to your stats. In 5e, you do that as well, along with stat bumps (for those that use those). In both cases, the choices you make as a player to assign your stats is being overridden by an item. Therefore, the are both exactly the same in the context of the basis of the original complaint. How many times you modify your stats is irrelevant to the complaint. The point was that player choice is being overridden.

And I'd go so far as to posit that it's ludicrous to imply that the argument doesn't apply to AD&D but does to 5e since clearly in BOTH cases player choice on how to assign values to stats are being overridden. (which is what Paraxis implied earlier).

 

[Kaychsea]

Are we actually arguing that something your character might find at some point in the future may make a decision you are making now wrong? That because it exists somewhere you can really base what you are now on getting it one day?

I may be playing this all wrong. I'd carry on in the gym and give it to the cleric, who I'd expect would be concentrating on getting his Wis up. Because, you know, just in case I don't find one of those belts, or already have three shinys I like before I do.

 

[aramis erak]

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

For AD&D, it depends upon how many wishes the characters got hold of... Each wish is a full point to an attribute under 16, or 1/10th of an attribute for higher atts.

And, except for method 1, you're still picking stats, and can have a build.