Extra strength, cheap?

[noparlpf]

Bridle of Burden-Bearing: This bit-and-bridle set increases the Strength score of the harnessed dray creature, enabling it to pull heavier loads.
Caster Level: 8th; Prerequisites: Craft Wondrous Item, bull’s strength; Market Price: 4,000 gp (+2), 16,000 gp (+4), 36,000 gp (+6); Weight: —.

"Dray", when used to refer to a creature rather than to a wagon, is usually applied to horses or similar. However, according to various sources (wikipedia and etymonline are the ones I checked), "dray" derives from the Old English dragan, meaning "to draw" or "to haul"; similarly, the Dutch word dragen means "to carry".
It might be a little bit of a stretch, but I'd say that a "dray creature" is any creature that frequently carries, drags, or hauls stuff. I'd say I do that most days, and I'm not even an adventurer burdened with the equipment most adventurers are assumed to carry; I'm a college student (and the guy who most people come to when they want help carrying things).
If we accept the premise that any creature that carries things is a "dray creature", then any creature carrying anything besides its clothing (if any) and this item would benefit from it.

Now here's a bit more of a stretch: the text states that this item "increases" the wearer's Strength score. It doesn't provide any sort of bonus, it just increases Strength.
Your character might look a little bit silly walking around with a bit and bridle harnessed to his head (unless he's one of those horse-folk, whatever they're called; then he just looks like he has an abusive girlfriend), but I think that this might be a cheap way of getting an extra boost to Strength due to this oversight on the part of WotC's editors.

Who wants to tear apart my logic first?

[sonofzeal]

Market Price: 4,000 gp (+2), 16,000 gp (+4), 36,000 gp (+6)
Sorry to break it to you, but that's the standard price on those modifiers. Neither cheaper nor more expensive.

[Zaq]

Sorry to break it to you, but that's the standard price on those modifiers. Neither cheaper nor more expensive.

I think the point is that the bonus is untyped, so you could get, say, +4 Gauntlets of Ogre Power and a +2 Bit of Burden-Bearing for much cheaper than you could get a set of +6 Gauntlets.

[Flickerdart]

As per MIC, you can shift the bonus to another item from the same slot at no extra cost, or to another item from a different slot at...1.5x? 2x cost? Something like that. Point being, you don't have to wear bondage gear to battle.

[Starbuck_II]

As per MIC, you can shift the bonus to another item from the same slot at no extra cost, or to another item from a different slot at...1.5x? 2x cost? Something like that. Point being, you don't have to wear bondage gear to battle.

I think the untyped bonus requires Bondage gear from a balance and flavor viewpoint. :smallbiggrin:

[bartman]

The creation spell is Bulls Strength, this to me says it will be an enhancement bonus, not an untyped bonus. I do not know any DM in his right mind who would allow this through on a serious game.

[sonofzeal]

I think the point is that the bonus is untyped, so you could get, say, +4 Gauntlets of Ogre Power and a +2 Bit of Burden-Bearing for much cheaper than you could get a set of +6 Gauntlets.
Ah, that makes more sense. Yes, it doesn't specify a bonus type. Good find.


The creation spell is Bulls Strength, this to me says it will be an enhancement bonus, not an untyped bonus. I do not know any DM in his right mind who would allow this through on a serious game.
A lot of required spells don't exactly line up with the item in question. I'm not perturbed by that.

[ericgrau]

It's still an obvious oversight. Untyped bonuses don't come that cheap. Usually they don't come at all.

But for theoretical op, sure, adventurers will wear bridles, girdles, whatever if it gives them a better bonus.

[Drachasor]

It's still an obvious oversight. Untyped bonuses don't come that cheap. Usually they don't come at all.

But for theoretical op, sure, adventurers will wear bridles, girdles, whatever if it gives them a better bonus.

The ones who optimize for zero dignity, sure.

[Diarmuid]

The AEG is also 3.0 material so it should bs taken with a large grain of salt

[Zaq]

The creation spell is Bulls Strength, this to me says it will be an enhancement bonus, not an untyped bonus. I do not know any DM in his right mind who would allow this through on a serious game.

No comment on the second sentence, but regarding the first, it's quite rare for items to exactly match the spells required to make them. Quite rare indeed, outside of spell trigger/spell completion items . . .

[Drachasor]

Well, technically the description doesn't say how the item works. We're left with a vague +2/+4/+6 in the pricing, but it doesn't say how that works.

Now sure, it is quite reasonable to assume RAI is that those are pricings for various bonuses to strength, but RAW doesn't say that. It might also be reasonable to assume this is an increase that only works for carrying capacity.

It's also reasonable to assume it's an enhancement bonus. Really, it's up to the DM.

[SowZ]

I think the point is that the bonus is untyped, so you could get, say, +4 Gauntlets of Ogre Power and a +2 Bit of Burden-Bearing for much cheaper than you could get a set of +6 Gauntlets.

Standard price for a stat bonus is the bonus squared times one thousand. One +2 Strength item and another +6 Strength item does not equal a +8 Strength bonus. They don't stack.

[Zaq]

Standard price for a stat bonus is the bonus squared times one thousand. One +2 Strength item and another +6 Strength item does not equal a +8 Strength bonus. They don't stack.

Normally, this is true. However, that's because typed bonuses (and untyped bonuses from the same source) don't stack, not because stat bonuses don't stack. Most stat bonuses you get from items other than Tomes are enhancement bonuses. The Bit, apparently, is untyped, so it stacks.

It's just like how a +2 Ring of Protection and a +1 Amulet of Natural Armor is cheaper than a +3 Ring of Protection.

[Drachasor]

Normally, this is true. However, that's because typed bonuses (and untyped bonuses from the same source) don't stack, not because stat bonuses don't stack. Most stat bonuses you get from items other than Tomes are enhancement bonuses. The Bit, apparently, is untyped, so it stacks.

Again, technically the item doesn't say it even gives a specific bonus to strength. It just implies it...and at the level of implication, it is up to the DM to decide how that works.

[Zaq]

Again, technically the item doesn't say it even gives a specific bonus to strength. It just implies it...and at the level of implication, it is up to the DM to decide how that works.

Hmm, you're right. It doesn't give a bonus to STR. It just flat-out directly increases it. Which is rather a bit better, actually, since technically it should now stack with itself, since it's not a bonus.

That last bit probably wouldn't fly, but really, I don't see how what you're saying makes sense. This seems cut and dried to me.

[SowZ]

Normally, this is true. However, that's because typed bonuses (and untyped bonuses from the same source) don't stack, not because stat bonuses don't stack. Most stat bonuses you get from items other than Tomes are enhancement bonuses. The Bit, apparently, is untyped, so it stacks.

It's just like how a +2 Ring of Protection and a +1 Amulet of Natural Armor is cheaper than a +3 Ring of Protection.

Technically, maybe, but I think this is a case where the DM needs to understand what is being implied. Ring of Protection gives a deflection mod to AC, Amulet gives natural armor. The bridle works just like an enhancement bonus.

[Drachasor]

Hmm, you're right. It doesn't give a bonus to STR. It just flat-out directly increases it. Which is rather a bit better, actually, since technically it should now stack with itself, since it's not a bonus.

That last bit probably wouldn't fly, but really, I don't see how what you're saying makes sense. This seems cut and dried to me.

The item says it increases strength. It doesn't say how or by how much. It even talks about carrying capacity (e.g. load), so it isn't clear what exactly is going on with this item.

Compare to a Belt of Giant's Strength. In the description of the device it says how it works and what flavors it comes in. The same is true of any other magical device that provides a similar bonus. The only way it would ever do anything is by a DM ruling.

When I say this bridle doesn't specify how it works, I mean just that. Strictly by RAW, it does absolutely nothing, because the description gives no mechanics.

[That_guy_there]

The item says it increases strength. It doesn't say how or by how much. It even talks about carrying capacity (e.g. load), so it isn't clear what exactly is going on with this item.

Compare to a Belt of Giant's Strength. In the description of the device it says how it works and what flavors it comes in. The same is true of any other magical device that provides a similar bonus. The only way it would ever do anything is by a DM ruling.

When I say this bridle doesn't specify how it works, I mean just that. Strictly by RAW, it does absolutely nothing, because the description gives no mechanics.

I agree that the mechinics (or lack there of) are left to the DM whims. And once you let that happen, you have to realize a Bridle is a rod attatched to reins that is shoved into the horse's mouth. At best a generous Dm may let you get away with it being some type of bonus but restrict you character from speaking (which precludes most spellcasting), and even most communication.

[Salanmander]

I'm more concerned about the linguistic argument. That would be like saying that elfbane arrows should affect evil spirits, imps, goblins, and fae, due to the origins of the word "elf". Just doesn't fly, sorry.

[Zaq]

I'm more concerned about the linguistic argument. That would be like saying that elfbane arrows should affect evil spirits, imps, goblins, and fae, due to the origins of the word "elf". Just doesn't fly, sorry.

Personally, I'd be OK with that, but I know that to say such a thing would be to miss your point entirely.