To be honest Geann, and with absolutely no offense intended to you at all - this is, very seriously, an observation on the viewpoint you espouse that many players share - this idea of absolutely everything needing to be perfectly one to one at all times is super restrictive and induces a lot of artificial restraints in the story. How would you handle the party discovering an exceptionally powerful item, such as a Staff of Power, before level 5 and having to decide what to do with it while they're being chased by powerful parties who want to take it for their own? That's one of my favorite set-ups for a game - "you, the party, are in possession of an extremely powerful item/artifact - and other people know it. People who are much stronger than you, and who will be more than happy to kill you to claim it for themselves. You're being hunted, and the noose is drawing tighter. What do you do?"
Demanding that the GM be exactly and strictly equal in their magic item distribution, ensuring the entire party always has the exact same number and rarities of magical gear and that all their gear is as close to parity as can be achieved, puts enormous limits on loot and also forces the party to be colluding to accomplish this. They can't assign loot themselves as they see fit - they have to follow the DM's proscribed plan to the letter or the whole thing is off and it becomes Unfair. They can't have items that float around the party as befits the party's current needs, such as Immovable Rods; that throws off the balance and makes things Unfair.
The better view to take is asking oneself if the GM is treating the story fairly, and whether the GM is respecting everyone's contributions to the tale. The game is fair if no one feels singled out, positively or negatively. If somebody else has more magical swag, it may be because they're playing a more swag-dependent class - or even simply because the GM opts to use treasure rolls instead of hand-picked loot and somebody got luckier than the others. So long as everyone can still contribute and feels like their contributions are both valid and respected, who cares who has what gear? If somebody has a GM-fiat 'artifact' that exists solely to fuel an offbeat character concept with no real impact on gameplay and little impact on most of the story, what's the harm?
Example: Caleb Widogast, in Critical Role, carried an Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location since the first moment of the first session of Critical Role's second campaign. With little exception, he was in possession of that item from start to finish. The item later served as plot fodder, but for the most part it simply allowed Liam to play his character the way he envisioned it, as well as reducing Caleb's ability to attune to other, swankier swag.
Second example, from the same game: Fjord Stone was the only character in all of Campaign 2 to acquire a Vestige of Divergence. His sword is by far the most powerful item the Nein ever acquired, if one exempts the Luxon Beacon they only held temporarily. By your logic, the GM was being enormously unfair to the rest of the party by not outfitting the rest of them with mind-blowing legendary super-gear to match the sword the Nein had to go on multiple quests to reassemble. Had the GM done exactly that, however? It simply would've been a tired rehash of Campaign 1, everybody going on whatever random quest they discovered to find their own handpicked swag, and in the doing none of it would've been special or interesting anymore. Vox Machina got away with that because they were hunting multiple ancient dragons and needed every edge they could get; the Nein's campaign didn't need that kind of aggressive equity.
A GM doesn't have to be scrupulously equal in their loot distribution. They simply have to be fair. Some tables will be more sensitive to gear inequality than others, but forcing everyone to try for absolute, unbending one-to-one parity between all items ever for every single character is just unnecessarily restrictive and annoying. Nobody can ever find anything cool under that restriction.
To be honest Geann, and with absolutely no offense intended to you at all - this is, very seriously, an observation on the viewpoint you espouse that many players share - this idea of absolutely everything needing to be perfectly one to one at all times is super restrictive and induces a lot of artificial restraints in the story. How would you handle the party discovering an exceptionally powerful item, such as a Staff of Power, before level 5 and having to decide what to do with it while they're being chased by powerful parties who want to take it for their own? That's one of my favorite set-ups for a game - "you, the party, are in possession of an extremely powerful item/artifact - and other people know it. People who are much stronger than you, and who will be more than happy to kill you to claim it for themselves. You're being hunted, and the noose is drawing tighter. What do you do?"
Demanding that the GM be exactly and strictly equal in their magic item distribution, ensuring the entire party always has the exact same number and rarities of magical gear and that all their gear is as close to parity as can be achieved, puts enormous limits on loot and also forces the party to be colluding to accomplish this. They can't assign loot themselves as they see fit - they have to follow the DM's proscribed plan to the letter or the whole thing is off and it becomes Unfair. They can't have items that float around the party as befits the party's current needs, such as Immovable Rods; that throws off the balance and makes things Unfair.
The better view to take is asking oneself if the GM is treating the story fairly, and whether the GM is respecting everyone's contributions to the tale. The game is fair if no one feels singled out, positively or negatively. If somebody else has more magical swag, it may be because they're playing a more swag-dependent class - or even simply because the GM opts to use treasure rolls instead of hand-picked loot and somebody got luckier than the others. So long as everyone can still contribute and feels like their contributions are both valid and respected, who cares who has what gear? If somebody has a GM-fiat 'artifact' that exists solely to fuel an offbeat character concept with no real impact on gameplay and little impact on most of the story, what's the harm?
Example: Caleb Widogast, in Critical Role, carried an Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location since the first moment of the first session of Critical Role's second campaign. With little exception, he was in possession of that item from start to finish. The item later served as plot fodder, but for the most part it simply allowed Liam to play his character the way he envisioned it, as well as reducing Caleb's ability to attune to other, swankier swag.
Second example, from the same game: Fjord Stone was the only character in all of Campaign 2 to acquire a Vestige of Divergence. His sword is by far the most powerful item the Nein ever acquired, if one exempts the Luxon Beacon they only held temporarily. By your logic, the GM was being enormously unfair to the rest of the party by not outfitting the rest of them with mind-blowing legendary super-gear to match the sword the Nein had to go on multiple quests to reassemble. Had the GM done exactly that, however? It simply would've been a tired rehash of Campaign 1, everybody going on whatever random quest they discovered to find their own handpicked swag, and in the doing none of it would've been special or interesting anymore. Vox Machina got away with that because they were hunting multiple ancient dragons and needed every edge they could get; the Nein's campaign didn't need that kind of aggressive equity.
A GM doesn't have to be scrupulously equal in their loot distribution. They simply have to be fair. Some tables will be more sensitive to gear inequality than others, but forcing everyone to try for absolute, unbending one-to-one parity between all items ever for every single character is just unnecessarily restrictive and annoying. Nobody can ever find anything cool under that restriction.
I think (as others have mentioned) it comes down to trust in your players.
Travis and Liam have been playing with Matt for a long time and they all trust each other to not break the bank with items/abilities. Its one of the things I love about CR and I try to encourage in my own players.
I likely would trust them with a higher level item now but when we first started....oh hell no. It would have been a nightmare for me as a new DM.
So experience, player attitude/experience, and group dynamic do dictate a lot of how you handle this kind of thing.
You make a good point overall that if its adding to everyones enjoyment its likely not a bad thing....just remember if you are a DM YOUR enjoyment counts too and if an item is giving you heartburn just be honest and talk it out.
Every solution is only a solution if it solves a problem at your specific table. if the solution doesn't work for you, or the problem doesn't exist for you? Then the solution has no bearing.
I've encountered the idea Geann espoused in the post I responded to plenty - the notion that GMs should be scrupulously, rigorously fair in item distribution and ensure every single party member is as close to perfectly equivalent as humanly possible. I'd hoped to speak to him and potentially others on why that doesn't necessarily mean the game is Fair, especially if it's strangling the tale the GM wants to tell or the tale the players want to play.
Every solution is only a solution if it solves a problem at your specific table. if the solution doesn't work for you, or the problem doesn't exist for you? Then the solution has no bearing.
I've encountered the idea Geann espoused in the post I responded to plenty - the notion that GMs should be scrupulously, rigorously fair in item distribution and ensure every single party member is as close to perfectly equivalent as humanly possible. I'd hoped to speak to him and potentially others on why that doesn't necessarily mean the game is Fair, especially if it's strangling the tale the GM wants to tell or the tale the players want to play.
Thats fair and for most it might be a moving target anyway so there is no one size fits all solution for sure.
When I DM loot distribution is rarely equal. I generate basic loot randomly and allow the characters to distribute it between themselves. When I put in more powerful items it is on purpose and there is normally only one. For example a boss might have a single powerful item and a small number of weaker items that the party can acquire after they defeat them. That feels more natural than the boss having 5 or 6 powerful items. As the game progresses, new items are gained that shift the power dynamic within the party, but we all know as a group than any power gained by a party member is a boon for the party as a whole and that each character will have their own moments to shine. If we had a group member that whined every time another character got something and they didn't, I don't think they would last long in our group.
As far as starting with an item, it would depend on the circumstances and the player. In our current group I feel I could trust any of them to not abuse the situation but I wouldn't feel the same way about a newer group member right off the bat.
Actually, Yurei, when it comes to existing items, I leave it to the players to deal with as they choose. I'm not as "scrupulously, rigorously fair in item distribution" as you seem to think I am. Life isn't fair in the real world, and it don't force it to be in a game. My problem is with a homebrew item that is customized for a specific player and a couple of things that break the rules, in order to allow them to use an unusual character concept. That's not fair, and it's as simple as that.
There's nothing wrong with having a backstory where you were a mastiff who was a beloved family pet and got transformed somehow into a Half-Elf or whatever. I'd let them play a Druid and they could add "Mastiff" to the forms they could wildshape into. That's as far as I'm willing to bend.
What the original poster had in mind isn't a simple cosmetic effect. It that's all it was, and then needed some homebrew to accomplish it, I'd be ok with that. They went way beyond cosmetic. They want what you call the equivalent of a 9th level spell effect at first level. Two levels later then want to break at least one rule in addition to make their concept work. Would you say that was fair to the other players without them getting something similar?
What the original poster had in mind isn't a simple cosmetic effect. It that's all it was, and then needed some homebrew to accomplish it, I'd be ok with that. They went way beyond cosmetic. They want what you call the equivalent of a 9th level spell effect at first level. Two levels later then want to break at least one rule in addition to make their concept work. Would you say that was fair to the other players without them getting something similar?
Yes. Because of this "They never used it before, and you have no reason to think they will start using it now."
Cross that bridge when the party gets to it. At that point, everyone will be aware of the item and what it can do and can air their issues with the DM after that session, if they feel they are being treated unfairly
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Cross that bridge when the party gets to it. At that point, everyone will be aware of the item and what it can do and can air their issues with the DM after that session, if they feel they are being treated unfairly
This is the correct answer in my opinion. As of now, it is not an issue at all. There hasn't been any imbalance or does the OP think that there will be in the near future. Getting upset about an item that has not impacted the game to this point is kind of a waste of time and energy.
Yeah I think we are getting a bit off track here...or at least I think we are.
I think what they are saying is that swapping to a dog is completely fine as its relatively minor.....but True Polymorphing into a dragon is likely not something a 1st level PC should be doing.
People with customized stuff in their backgrounds are as good or bad for their game as their customized background is. It's not really Fair to assume that the player is fishing for power and trying to be unfair to their table - sometimes they just have a cool idea and want to float it by their DM.
I have a character - Rho, a devil-tainted witch whose background involves her being cursed by an Archdevil/exceptionally powerful devil/Demon Lord/however-it-works-in-the-world called the Gamemaster. The Gamemaster plays games for souls he perceives as being powerful and worthy of the game. The terms of the Gamemaster's game is simply - one hundred years from the moment he laid his curse upon her, Rho will die and fall to Hell as his possession. If she finds a way to break the curse? She's free to go, and gets to keep the gift of power he gave her to give her a sporting chance to play his game - since the Gamemaster hates nothing more than he hates a rigged game where the outcome is already known.
Rho starts the game with the Epic Boon of Immortality - the Gamemaster ensured she would have the entirety of her hundred years to play, rather than withering away and growing too feeble to play halfway through. She is a wizard, not a warlock - she studies the arcane to search for a way to break the curse placed upon her, using demons and devils as pawns rather than mentors. Should Rho ever die? The game is lost, her soul is forfeit, and the Gamemaster claims her - resurrection is impossible for her unless the party steals her soul back from Hell, and frankly by the time they get around to trying to do so it would almost certainly be too late.
Rho is not a character I would play in many, or even most, games. Primarily because her set-up is very specific, as it's translated from an older, non-D&D game I played extensively. She is contentious, and she's not a character I would use for a pick-up game or a game where the DM hates backstories and wants everyone to focus on the story he feeds them.
I did not, however, design Rho to be a power-grabby attention whore. Despite her theoretically 'exceptionally powerful' gift of immortality, she's easier to kill off for real than most other PCs as she cannot be resurrected, and the point of her backstory is to give the GM a plethora of options for challenging Rho, and the party by extension, with demonic interference. She presents an opportunity for the GM to tell more stories and use the background I provided to throw monkey wrenches in the party's plans. Some GMs delight in this and would be only too happy to let me run my demon-tainted witch in exchange for giving them a whole tackle box of story hooks and actively volunteering to step into the crosshairs whenever they decide to club me upside the head with the background I wrote.
If it's in service to the game? I don't see why ideas should be summarily shot down simply because it's Unfair. Especially since many of these background ideas involve the player being Unfair to themself more than their fellows, setting themselves up for hardship down the line rather than fishing for unearned power.
I guess at this point, things have gotten lost in the clutter. What we need is for the OP to create the character in full with the character builder tool and give is a link to it, as a first level, or whatever level it is when they first get their homebrew item. They don't need to make the item, the same post where they give the link they can explain exactly what the item does, and they will need to use specific game terms for that. If there are limitations, like the item can't be used by anyone else, that needs to be written down. If there are charges, how many and how they are recovered is needed. Anything non standard along the way also need to be on the sheet or explained.
Links to stat blocks involved will be required.
Once we have the correct information, and not a bunch of supposition (which is my mistake really) then we can decide on it's merits if people find out they find out about what ever non-standard things the character has. If the player never intends to use it, fine, but they can't hope that people will never find out. Does it matter if they don't know? Of course not. The real question is what happens when they do find out.
The real question is what happens when they do find out.
They talk to their DM about it, who can either provide context as to why he/she believes it is not an unbalanced addition (which the party can then argue with if they feel the DM is incorrect). Likewise, the DM may reveal that the item is tied to the story and that there may be some "cost" to having the item down the road. Or, the DM may simply reassure the party that he/she had plans to award similar items to all players, but only when they reached story points that made sense for that character to get the item (rather than start with it). Who knows what is going through the DMs head?
I agree that we are missing alot of context and information here, but I dont think having the OP write out a 1:1 character sheet here on D&D beyond will accomplish anything. It could just as easily turn the thread into a multi-page discussion about whether it is statistically reasonable/possible for the character to have certain stats or bonuses. Its also alot of work for the OP to do for something that will come down to just talking to the DM and the rest of the table at the appropriate time. Not to mention, to write out a copy of the character sheet, they would have to ask the character in question to look over their sheet which only shows that OP is suspicious of something.
We cannot predict how the rest of OP's table will react "when they find out" nor can we be sure that any of our advice will be relevant once this discussion is held and the DM is given the chance to pull back the curtain and reveal parts of their plan.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I agree that we are missing alot of context and information here, but I dont think having the OP write out a 1:1 character sheet here on D&D beyond will accomplish anything.
I feel like it would be faster than making it it a weird guessing game.
To be perfectly honest, I am in this thread (threads) because something about it amuses me. It's like a slowly unfolding puzzle and I am mildly fascinated with each new post to find out not only what the OP is actually talking about, but by extension what I am talking about as well.
Threads like this are prone to get people a little agitated, probably because even if someone enters genuinely invested providing help or an answer or an opinion, you're left with the feeling that the person you're talking with is being manipulative. Not necessarily in a malicious way, but in a way where they are deliberately being withholding to manage you in some capacity. You start answering questions in good faith, but the more information is seeded out, the more it starts to create a little cognitive dissonance as you become decreasingly certain what you are even being asked.
Posing broad and general questions (and again, keep in mind there is more than one thread at play in this discussion) when you actually have something specific in mind is probably not the best practice whether your intentions are good or not. You just end up making everyone guess what question it is they are really answering. I am not the post police. I can't tell someone how to conduct their inquiries. But I think it's not too controversial to say when you want a question answered, start by figuring out what question you really want answered and what information people need to answer it. Are you seeking validation? Reassurance? Advice? Critique? Personal stories? Specific facts? If you don't do that, most of the answers will probably fit one of two categories: 1) vague answers like "it depends" or "ask your gm" or answers that don't really address what you wanted out of the inquiry.
All that is to say maybe just making the character sheet would be faster so we could see what it is we'd supposedly be reacting to whether is some sort of creature who farts in polyglot meteor swarms and has prismatic wall for skin, or if it's 98.65% flavour text with a few extra gold.
In the OPs original post, it made it sound like he/she only knew about this item from glancing at another player's character sheet. How are they going to recreate the sheet without confronting the player and highlighting that they suspect them or the DM of something?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I'm stuck in a debate currently, and want to get other people's thoughts on this. If you are playing with someone, and they have access to overpowered resources items/spells/race/class/ etc... and no one else has access to these (or other equally overpowered) resources, does it matter if you are unaware and they don't use/abuse the resources? Like say you spend 10 sessions playing with someone, before you happen to see their sheet and find out that they actually have an item that lets them cast a 9th level spell once a day. (you are a party of level >5's) They never used it before, and you have no reason to think they will start using it now. Does it matter that the DM has let them have this item?
Just jumping in to add a voice in response to the OP:
"Does it matter?": Yes, however...
Everyone sitting around the table are assumed to be "friends" of equal worth. Introducing any kind of significant disparity that isn't reached by consensus creates a "psuedo-stable" relationship that could easily turn into friction later. Now, if the game proceeds as hoped, and no-one ever becomes aware of the disparity, then someone might make an "Ends Justify The Means" moral argument.
Personally, I find "Ends Justify The Means" to be dangerous and reprehensible. If there exists a morally superior choice in the moment, it should be taken, because the ends can't be known until it's too late.
That said, it can be very difficult to determine a morally superior choice. We can't always know the consequences of our actions, and we can't always trust that other will always respond reasonably to those actions. The only thing we can control are our intentions, how we will act to anticipate possible consequences, and how we will use the experience to do better in the future.
The bottom line is that the party should be included in all major decisions, whether or not they are a direct beneficiary. A DM can tell the group that they intend to introduce secret unequal elements to the game that may have unknowable consequences. A DM can also be open about the possibility of making changes throughout the game to ensure that it doesn't cause any serious issues. This gives the players opportunities to actively consent to the DMs discretion, and provides them with reassurance that the DM is acting with the groups best interests at heart.
I agree that we are missing alot of context and information here, but I dont think having the OP write out a 1:1 character sheet here on D&D beyond will accomplish anything.
I feel like it would be faster than making it it a weird guessing game.
To be perfectly honest, I am in this thread (threads) because something about it amuses me. It's like a slowly unfolding puzzle and I am mildly fascinated with each new post to find out not only what the OP is actually talking about, but by extension what I am talking about as well.
Threads like this are prone to get people a little agitated, probably because even if someone enters genuinely invested providing help or an answer or an opinion, you're left with the feeling that the person you're talking with is being manipulative. Not necessarily in a malicious way, but in a way where they are deliberately being withholding to manage you in some capacity. You start answering questions in good faith, but the more information is seeded out, the more it starts to create a little cognitive dissonance as you become decreasingly certain what you are even being asked.
Posing broad and general questions (and again, keep in mind there is more than one thread at play in this discussion) when you actually have something specific in mind is probably not the best practice whether your intentions are good or not. You just end up making everyone guess what question it is they are really answering. I am not the post police. I can't tell someone how to conduct their inquiries. But I think it's not too controversial to say when you want a question answered, start by figuring out what question you really want answered and what information people need to answer it. Are you seeking validation? Reassurance? Advice? Critique? Personal stories? Specific facts? If you don't do that, most of the answers will probably fit one of two categories: 1) vague answers like "it depends" or "ask your gm" or answers that don't really address what you wanted out of the inquiry.
All that is to say maybe just making the character sheet would be faster so we could see what it is we'd supposedly be reacting to whether is some sort of creature who farts in polyglot meteor swarms and has prismatic wall for skin, or if it's 98.65% flavour text with a few extra gold.
In the OPs original post, it made it sound like he/she only knew about this item from glancing at another player's character sheet. How are they going to recreate the sheet without confronting the player and highlighting that they suspect them or the DM of something?
But that's what I am talking about. Over time we've discovered that it is most likely their own character, not someone else's. Why would you default to the first post when my whole criticism was that the scenario appeared to keep shifting as the original poster added more information across more than one thread?
Nowhere in this thread does the OP state that it is his/her own character, so I am working off of the information presented by OP in this thread alone. I have not seen any of the other thread linked in any of the discussion here. It is true that you alluded to the existence of other threads, but did not provide links I could follow so I could review the information as well to better understand your response. I have not seen any other posters to this thread allude to the others either, so they have been off my radar until you responded.
I just double checked the past few pages of OPs responses, and I have not seen anything in this thread (which is the only one I have seen) that suggests this character belongs to them besides the most recent post where he/she seems to be able to reproduce the character sheet with ease, which now does have me thinking along those lines as well
To be honest Geann, and with absolutely no offense intended to you at all - this is, very seriously, an observation on the viewpoint you espouse that many players share - this idea of absolutely everything needing to be perfectly one to one at all times is super restrictive and induces a lot of artificial restraints in the story. How would you handle the party discovering an exceptionally powerful item, such as a Staff of Power, before level 5 and having to decide what to do with it while they're being chased by powerful parties who want to take it for their own? That's one of my favorite set-ups for a game - "you, the party, are in possession of an extremely powerful item/artifact - and other people know it. People who are much stronger than you, and who will be more than happy to kill you to claim it for themselves. You're being hunted, and the noose is drawing tighter. What do you do?"
Demanding that the GM be exactly and strictly equal in their magic item distribution, ensuring the entire party always has the exact same number and rarities of magical gear and that all their gear is as close to parity as can be achieved, puts enormous limits on loot and also forces the party to be colluding to accomplish this. They can't assign loot themselves as they see fit - they have to follow the DM's proscribed plan to the letter or the whole thing is off and it becomes Unfair. They can't have items that float around the party as befits the party's current needs, such as Immovable Rods; that throws off the balance and makes things Unfair.
The better view to take is asking oneself if the GM is treating the story fairly, and whether the GM is respecting everyone's contributions to the tale. The game is fair if no one feels singled out, positively or negatively. If somebody else has more magical swag, it may be because they're playing a more swag-dependent class - or even simply because the GM opts to use treasure rolls instead of hand-picked loot and somebody got luckier than the others. So long as everyone can still contribute and feels like their contributions are both valid and respected, who cares who has what gear? If somebody has a GM-fiat 'artifact' that exists solely to fuel an offbeat character concept with no real impact on gameplay and little impact on most of the story, what's the harm?
Example: Caleb Widogast, in Critical Role, carried an Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location since the first moment of the first session of Critical Role's second campaign. With little exception, he was in possession of that item from start to finish. The item later served as plot fodder, but for the most part it simply allowed Liam to play his character the way he envisioned it, as well as reducing Caleb's ability to attune to other, swankier swag.
Second example, from the same game: Fjord Stone was the only character in all of Campaign 2 to acquire a Vestige of Divergence. His sword is by far the most powerful item the Nein ever acquired, if one exempts the Luxon Beacon they only held temporarily. By your logic, the GM was being enormously unfair to the rest of the party by not outfitting the rest of them with mind-blowing legendary super-gear to match the sword the Nein had to go on multiple quests to reassemble. Had the GM done exactly that, however? It simply would've been a tired rehash of Campaign 1, everybody going on whatever random quest they discovered to find their own handpicked swag, and in the doing none of it would've been special or interesting anymore. Vox Machina got away with that because they were hunting multiple ancient dragons and needed every edge they could get; the Nein's campaign didn't need that kind of aggressive equity.
A GM doesn't have to be scrupulously equal in their loot distribution. They simply have to be fair. Some tables will be more sensitive to gear inequality than others, but forcing everyone to try for absolute, unbending one-to-one parity between all items ever for every single character is just unnecessarily restrictive and annoying. Nobody can ever find anything cool under that restriction.
Please do not contact or message me.
I think (as others have mentioned) it comes down to trust in your players.
Travis and Liam have been playing with Matt for a long time and they all trust each other to not break the bank with items/abilities. Its one of the things I love about CR and I try to encourage in my own players.
I likely would trust them with a higher level item now but when we first started....oh hell no. It would have been a nightmare for me as a new DM.
So experience, player attitude/experience, and group dynamic do dictate a lot of how you handle this kind of thing.
You make a good point overall that if its adding to everyones enjoyment its likely not a bad thing....just remember if you are a DM YOUR enjoyment counts too and if an item is giving you heartburn just be honest and talk it out.
Every solution is only a solution if it solves a problem at your specific table. if the solution doesn't work for you, or the problem doesn't exist for you? Then the solution has no bearing.
I've encountered the idea Geann espoused in the post I responded to plenty - the notion that GMs should be scrupulously, rigorously fair in item distribution and ensure every single party member is as close to perfectly equivalent as humanly possible. I'd hoped to speak to him and potentially others on why that doesn't necessarily mean the game is Fair, especially if it's strangling the tale the GM wants to tell or the tale the players want to play.
Please do not contact or message me.
Thats fair and for most it might be a moving target anyway so there is no one size fits all solution for sure.
When I DM loot distribution is rarely equal. I generate basic loot randomly and allow the characters to distribute it between themselves. When I put in more powerful items it is on purpose and there is normally only one. For example a boss might have a single powerful item and a small number of weaker items that the party can acquire after they defeat them. That feels more natural than the boss having 5 or 6 powerful items. As the game progresses, new items are gained that shift the power dynamic within the party, but we all know as a group than any power gained by a party member is a boon for the party as a whole and that each character will have their own moments to shine. If we had a group member that whined every time another character got something and they didn't, I don't think they would last long in our group.
As far as starting with an item, it would depend on the circumstances and the player. In our current group I feel I could trust any of them to not abuse the situation but I wouldn't feel the same way about a newer group member right off the bat.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Actually, Yurei, when it comes to existing items, I leave it to the players to deal with as they choose. I'm not as "scrupulously, rigorously fair in item distribution" as you seem to think I am. Life isn't fair in the real world, and it don't force it to be in a game. My problem is with a homebrew item that is customized for a specific player and a couple of things that break the rules, in order to allow them to use an unusual character concept. That's not fair, and it's as simple as that.
There's nothing wrong with having a backstory where you were a mastiff who was a beloved family pet and got transformed somehow into a Half-Elf or whatever. I'd let them play a Druid and they could add "Mastiff" to the forms they could wildshape into. That's as far as I'm willing to bend.
<Insert clever signature here>
What the original poster had in mind isn't a simple cosmetic effect. It that's all it was, and then needed some homebrew to accomplish it, I'd be ok with that. They went way beyond cosmetic. They want what you call the equivalent of a 9th level spell effect at first level. Two levels later then want to break at least one rule in addition to make their concept work. Would you say that was fair to the other players without them getting something similar?
<Insert clever signature here>
Yes. Because of this "They never used it before, and you have no reason to think they will start using it now."
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
And when they start?
<Insert clever signature here>
Cross that bridge when the party gets to it. At that point, everyone will be aware of the item and what it can do and can air their issues with the DM after that session, if they feel they are being treated unfairly
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
This is the correct answer in my opinion. As of now, it is not an issue at all. There hasn't been any imbalance or does the OP think that there will be in the near future. Getting upset about an item that has not impacted the game to this point is kind of a waste of time and energy.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Switching from half-elf to dog (CR 1/8) and back and only from half-elf to dog and back is not the equivalent of a 9th level spell.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yeah I think we are getting a bit off track here...or at least I think we are.
I think what they are saying is that swapping to a dog is completely fine as its relatively minor.....but True Polymorphing into a dragon is likely not something a 1st level PC should be doing.
I could be wrong though!
People with customized stuff in their backgrounds are as good or bad for their game as their customized background is. It's not really Fair to assume that the player is fishing for power and trying to be unfair to their table - sometimes they just have a cool idea and want to float it by their DM.
I have a character - Rho, a devil-tainted witch whose background involves her being cursed by an Archdevil/exceptionally powerful devil/Demon Lord/however-it-works-in-the-world called the Gamemaster. The Gamemaster plays games for souls he perceives as being powerful and worthy of the game. The terms of the Gamemaster's game is simply - one hundred years from the moment he laid his curse upon her, Rho will die and fall to Hell as his possession. If she finds a way to break the curse? She's free to go, and gets to keep the gift of power he gave her to give her a sporting chance to play his game - since the Gamemaster hates nothing more than he hates a rigged game where the outcome is already known.
Rho starts the game with the Epic Boon of Immortality - the Gamemaster ensured she would have the entirety of her hundred years to play, rather than withering away and growing too feeble to play halfway through. She is a wizard, not a warlock - she studies the arcane to search for a way to break the curse placed upon her, using demons and devils as pawns rather than mentors. Should Rho ever die? The game is lost, her soul is forfeit, and the Gamemaster claims her - resurrection is impossible for her unless the party steals her soul back from Hell, and frankly by the time they get around to trying to do so it would almost certainly be too late.
Rho is not a character I would play in many, or even most, games. Primarily because her set-up is very specific, as it's translated from an older, non-D&D game I played extensively. She is contentious, and she's not a character I would use for a pick-up game or a game where the DM hates backstories and wants everyone to focus on the story he feeds them.
I did not, however, design Rho to be a power-grabby attention whore. Despite her theoretically 'exceptionally powerful' gift of immortality, she's easier to kill off for real than most other PCs as she cannot be resurrected, and the point of her backstory is to give the GM a plethora of options for challenging Rho, and the party by extension, with demonic interference. She presents an opportunity for the GM to tell more stories and use the background I provided to throw monkey wrenches in the party's plans. Some GMs delight in this and would be only too happy to let me run my demon-tainted witch in exchange for giving them a whole tackle box of story hooks and actively volunteering to step into the crosshairs whenever they decide to club me upside the head with the background I wrote.
If it's in service to the game? I don't see why ideas should be summarily shot down simply because it's Unfair. Especially since many of these background ideas involve the player being Unfair to themself more than their fellows, setting themselves up for hardship down the line rather than fishing for unearned power.
Please do not contact or message me.
I guess at this point, things have gotten lost in the clutter. What we need is for the OP to create the character in full with the character builder tool and give is a link to it, as a first level, or whatever level it is when they first get their homebrew item. They don't need to make the item, the same post where they give the link they can explain exactly what the item does, and they will need to use specific game terms for that. If there are limitations, like the item can't be used by anyone else, that needs to be written down. If there are charges, how many and how they are recovered is needed. Anything non standard along the way also need to be on the sheet or explained.
Links to stat blocks involved will be required.
Once we have the correct information, and not a bunch of supposition (which is my mistake really) then we can decide on it's merits if people find out they find out about what ever non-standard things the character has. If the player never intends to use it, fine, but they can't hope that people will never find out. Does it matter if they don't know? Of course not. The real question is what happens when they do find out.
<Insert clever signature here>
They talk to their DM about it, who can either provide context as to why he/she believes it is not an unbalanced addition (which the party can then argue with if they feel the DM is incorrect). Likewise, the DM may reveal that the item is tied to the story and that there may be some "cost" to having the item down the road. Or, the DM may simply reassure the party that he/she had plans to award similar items to all players, but only when they reached story points that made sense for that character to get the item (rather than start with it). Who knows what is going through the DMs head?
I agree that we are missing alot of context and information here, but I dont think having the OP write out a 1:1 character sheet here on D&D beyond will accomplish anything. It could just as easily turn the thread into a multi-page discussion about whether it is statistically reasonable/possible for the character to have certain stats or bonuses. Its also alot of work for the OP to do for something that will come down to just talking to the DM and the rest of the table at the appropriate time. Not to mention, to write out a copy of the character sheet, they would have to ask the character in question to look over their sheet which only shows that OP is suspicious of something.
We cannot predict how the rest of OP's table will react "when they find out" nor can we be sure that any of our advice will be relevant once this discussion is held and the DM is given the chance to pull back the curtain and reveal parts of their plan.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
In the OPs original post, it made it sound like he/she only knew about this item from glancing at another player's character sheet. How are they going to recreate the sheet without confronting the player and highlighting that they suspect them or the DM of something?
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I can post most of a character sheet in a few hours. Once I get off work. Not 100% on how to add the subclass ability without taking the subclass.
You know what I’ll post 2. 1 with rolled stats, and 1 with the stat block the character is based off.
Just jumping in to add a voice in response to the OP:
"Does it matter?": Yes, however...
Everyone sitting around the table are assumed to be "friends" of equal worth. Introducing any kind of significant disparity that isn't reached by consensus creates a "psuedo-stable" relationship that could easily turn into friction later. Now, if the game proceeds as hoped, and no-one ever becomes aware of the disparity, then someone might make an "Ends Justify The Means" moral argument.
Personally, I find "Ends Justify The Means" to be dangerous and reprehensible. If there exists a morally superior choice in the moment, it should be taken, because the ends can't be known until it's too late.
That said, it can be very difficult to determine a morally superior choice. We can't always know the consequences of our actions, and we can't always trust that other will always respond reasonably to those actions. The only thing we can control are our intentions, how we will act to anticipate possible consequences, and how we will use the experience to do better in the future.
The bottom line is that the party should be included in all major decisions, whether or not they are a direct beneficiary. A DM can tell the group that they intend to introduce secret unequal elements to the game that may have unknowable consequences. A DM can also be open about the possibility of making changes throughout the game to ensure that it doesn't cause any serious issues. This gives the players opportunities to actively consent to the DMs discretion, and provides them with reassurance that the DM is acting with the groups best interests at heart.
Nowhere in this thread does the OP state that it is his/her own character, so I am working off of the information presented by OP in this thread alone. I have not seen any of the other thread linked in any of the discussion here. It is true that you alluded to the existence of other threads, but did not provide links I could follow so I could review the information as well to better understand your response. I have not seen any other posters to this thread allude to the others either, so they have been off my radar until you responded.
I just double checked the past few pages of OPs responses, and I have not seen anything in this thread (which is the only one I have seen) that suggests this character belongs to them besides the most recent post where he/she seems to be able to reproduce the character sheet with ease, which now does have me thinking along those lines as well
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!