Tradeoff when destroying artifact

[Pinjata]

Hey guys,

I'm writing a new oneshot module for D&D and in it an essential part are holy items(lets call them artifacts) that give major boosts to PCs in a limited area (100ft radius) if they sacrifice them. Basicall if they sacrifice an artifact, they get major buffs to all capabilities.

Now as I have set up this one-shot PCs have a chance to find two such artifacts (one item and a group of very powerful slaves that represent socond "artifact". Setting is rather dark) that they may keep for themselves to later on sell for exorbitant prices or to sacrifice in order to gain buffs during the fights in module.

When I have presented this idea to a friend of mine he said: "Dude, its' one-shot. There is absolutely NO reason for PCs not to destroy both artifacts when in a fight in order to get advantage. In the end, people only want to explore the module and be done with it."

As much as I know two groups, this is exactly how things would go. So, I'd ask for some ideas on how to make tradeoff more balanced? At the moment, you can sell artifacts for "exorbitant prices" which you will not cash in on anyway or apply some sort of very nerfy wild magic chart to all enemies if you sacrifice an artifact.

thanks :)

[Elysiume]

Are your players evil? Sacrificing a bunch of slaves is a pretty evil thing to do. What's granting this power? If the artifacts are from an alignment opposed to your players, I could see them wanting to be rid of it ASAP. If you have a paladin and cleric of a specific god and the non-slave artifact is from that god, they'd be a lot more likely to want to hold onto it. The character I'm currently playing would neither sacrifice nor sell the slaves, and would conditionally destroy/sell/keep the artifact depending on more details.

Some more context about your party, in terms of class, role, alignment, and maybe a bit of backstory would help. Personally, I'd be far more likely to try not to sacrifice an item if I knew that I could sell it for a large sum of money down the road.

[Thinker]

Hey guys,

I'm writing a new oneshot module for D&D and in it an essential part are holy items(lets call them artifacts) that give major boosts to PCs in a limited area (100ft radius) if they sacrifice them. Basicall if they sacrifice an artifact, they get major buffs to all capabilities.

Now as I have set up this one-shot PCs have a chance to find two such artifacts (one item and a group of very powerful slaves that represent socond "artifact". Setting is rather dark) that they may keep for themselves to later on sell for exorbitant prices or to sacrifice in order to gain buffs during the fights in module.

When I have presented this idea to a friend of mine he said: "Dude, its' one-shot. There is absolutely NO reason for PCs not to destroy both artifacts when in a fight in order to get advantage. In the end, people only want to explore the module and be done with it."

As much as I know two groups, this is exactly how things would go. So, I'd ask for some ideas on how to make tradeoff more balanced? At the moment, you can sell artifacts for "exorbitant prices" which you will not cash in on anyway or apply some sort of very nerfy wild magic chart to all enemies if you sacrifice an artifact.

thanks :)

The sacrifice might enable greater personal power for the characters, but might also make things more difficult for them - like the dungeon being altered in some way or a new faction being introduced.

[Pinjata]

Are your players evil? Sacrificing a bunch of slaves is a pretty evil thing to do. What's granting this power? If the artifacts are from an alignment opposed to your players, I could see them wanting to be rid of it ASAP. If you have a paladin and cleric of a specific god and the non-slave artifact is from that god, they'd be a lot more likely to want to hold onto it. The character I'm currently playing would neither sacrifice nor sell the slaves, and would conditionally destroy/sell/keep the artifact depending on more details.

Some more context about your party, in terms of class, role, alignment, and maybe a bit of backstory would help. Personally, I'd be far more likely to try not to sacrifice an item if I knew that I could sell it for a large sum of money down the road.

It's a rather grim setting and, as I have set things up, hopefully actual evilness of the deed and meta-threat of loss of funds would make tradeoff more "on the edge". In this setting, divine powers of the world, sometimes bleed into identical twins and triplets, who are not powerful by themselves, but may be used as "fuel" for greater power.

There really is no alignment in this setting. Classes are deemed to be "standard D&D", thus fighter, cleric, caster, rogue. They are part of invasion force into a new world, great empire wants to conquer.

[Slipperychicken]

For the slaves, I'd have the "sacrifice" entail freeing them. If you set them free, then for a brief moment before they disperse they'll work (or fight) their hardest, out of elation and gratitude. Either that, or such an act of humanity and compassion is instantly rewarded by some supernatural force.

[mikeejimbo]

For the slaves, I'd have the "sacrifice" entail freeing them. If you set them free, then for a brief moment before they disperse they'll work (or fight) their hardest, out of elation and gratitude. Either that, or such an act of humanity and compassion is instantly rewarded by some supernatural force.

Ooh there you go. You could have one effect for freeing them, and another for sacrificing them.

Another option, although kinda cheesy, is to present them with two artifacts with different effects, but the gods/powers/whathaveyou will only accept one sacrifice, so they have to choose which one.

The most humorous option (...for a given definition of humor) is that the artifact can either be sacrificed in a manner that it gives all the PCs a boost, or a manner that gives one PC a stronger boost.

[Lo'Tek]

Oh the beautiful irony Without "oneshot" and "metagaming" the topic might just be "i gave them these artifacts to sacrifice during the campaign but they realised how much they are worth and sold them".

So you want to give them a choice.
Possible options
1: Get an advantage and a hindrance OR get nothing
2: Get advantage A OR get advantage B

Change the effect to "apply some sort of wild magic chart to everyone".
Pro: Makes it more of a "we are loosing, do it now" option.
Contra: Changes the fluff. Too random.

Get advantage in a single combat / get the good ending.
Pro: Matches the fluff, works well with many players.
Contra: hard to set up, does not work at all with people who skip the epilogue.
The point here is that selling it for a lot of money ist just.. not interesting. Owning the artifact in the epilogue means becoming a local ruler in the conquered world. Wealth, power, money, whatever they want is theirs.

Get advantage in a single combat + get the bad ending.
Difference to above is in the tone. Not common anymore, because it always was mostly a way to create replayability and was disliked by many. Understandably as it removes the feeling of having won and replaces it by having reached an end.

Get advantage in a single combat + you loose
This is the above one on steroids: instead of taking effect in the epilog, it takes effect in the last act
They sacrificed the artifacts to nerf some mooks? Well the boss is now unbeatable.
Considered "cruel" by modern game design standards

short term / long term
Hard in a oneshot, but possible: selling the artifacts quickly may give them access to things that improve their abilities consistently for the rest of the module.
Could also be called a "nerf them / improve yourself" trade