an item that gives +1 to an ability score

[Fitz10019]

Has anyone been in a campaign that allows an item to give +1 enhancement to an ability score? I recently played a 1-shot with point-buy, and a pair of (minor) Gloves of Dexterity (+1) would have come in handy.

If you decided to allow such a thing, how would you price it?

Or, what are your reasons not to allow it?

[Firechanter]

In my games, I grant a single +1 booster item to the respective PC's primary stat, usually awarded at level 4 (where it makes most sense because you can round up your level boost). I price it regularly, at 1000GP (bonus x bonus x 1000GP, just like the other stat boosters).

Note, when I first had the idea I just told my players "+1 stat boosters are allowed" without any limitations, and one player promptly went overboard with it and statted his char with all odd numbers. :p I even let him, but for subsequent games introduced the "one per customer" limitation.

[Kennisiou]

Items of +x to ability score are priced at bonus squared x1k, as previously stated. +1 to stat items are rarely problematic, honestly, and are actually nice little things you can do to, say, make a wildshaper get a bit more out of their shapes (+1 to str, dex, and con on a single item + a wildling clasp costs about 8k gold and lets you round off the often odd-numbered physical values that a lot of commonly-used shapes have).

[bekeleven]

There's no general rule against them. I've seen people argue against them because odd numbered stats are generally less advantagrous than even numbered stats. However, odd numbered stats do offer benefits - minimum prerequisites are always odd, resistance to ability damage/drain, carrying capacity, easier to boost with level, a few other small things.

People also object because it makes having odd stats better than having even stats. The problem then becomes, why shouldn't a 15 in a stat be better than having a 14? Why shouldn't a 17 be better than a 16? If you deny this, you're saying that a 16 is cheaper yet identical to a 17, which to me seems a worse problem.

[KillianHawkeye]

I've been in this argument before and I don't really want to get into again. I'll just say that the reason odd-numbered stat-boosting items don't exist is because they would do different things for different people. If a stat boost is even, it gives the exact same increase no matter who puts it on.

Not everybody agrees with this reasoning, but that is the reason behind it. You're free to do whatever you like in your own games, but I think the reason for this is a valid one and I disagree with changing it.

[Urpriest]

Let's put it this way: regardless of the actual balance implications, it's something the game design intentionally shies away from, and the problem with it is one of the first things people get when they start to understand the system. Messing with it tends to be more trouble than it's worth.

[Heliomance]

Let's put it this way: regardless of the actual balance implications, it's something the game design intentionally shies away from, and the problem with it is one of the first things people get when they start to understand the system. Messing with it tends to be more trouble than it's worth.

What trouble, precisely? I think every DM I've played with has allowed them; I consider myself to have a fairly high degree of system mastery, and I would have absolutely no qualms about allowing them. It's really not a big deal, and it makes players happy. I see no issue with this.

[Zman]

Anyone wanting a +1 Ability item gains the same benefit as a +2 item. This is an inherent balance problem and the reason +odd ability items do not exist and should not.

[Heliomance]

Anyone wanting a +1 Ability item gains the same benefit as a +2 item. This is an inherent balance problem and the reason +odd ability items do not exist and should not.



People also object because it makes having odd stats better than having even stats. The problem then becomes, why shouldn't a 15 in a stat be better than having a 14? Why shouldn't a 17 be better than a 16? If you deny this, you're saying that a 16 is cheaper yet identical to a 17, which to me seems a worse problem.

I think this answers that objection quite eloquently.

[TuggyNE]

I think this answers that objection quite eloquently.

Actually, it does not at all. Zman's objection is not that it makes 17 better than 16 (which it is already, though not necessarily enough), but that it makes 17 almost better than 18, which is clearly undesirable.

[Heliomance]

Actually, it does not at all. Zman's objection is not that it makes 17 better than 16 (which it is already, though not necessarily enough), but that it makes 17 almost better than 18, which is clearly undesirable.

How on earth does it do that? The character with a 17 has to spend 1000gp to get even with the character who has 18, and where the character with 18 can spend 4000gp to get up to a +5 bonus, the character with 17 has to spend 9000gp to get that. I really don't understand how you think that.

[squiggit]

People also object because it makes having odd stats better than having even stats. The problem then becomes, why shouldn't a 15 in a stat be better than having a 14? Why shouldn't a 17 be better than a 16? If you deny this, you're saying that a 16 is cheaper yet identical to a 17, which to me seems a worse problem.

But then you run into the opposite problem: Hand out a +1 stat item and suddenly a 17 is a cheaper 18 and a 19 is a cheaper 20.

[eggynack]

But then you run into the opposite problem: Hand out a +1 stat item and suddenly a 17 is a cheaper 18 and a 19 is a cheaper 20.
It's only cheaper in point buy. It's also more expensive in wealth. You could also say that a 16 is a cheaper 18, because you can just buy a +2 item, and there ya go. Also, as compared to 18, 17 doesn't let you hit 24, because there is presumably no +7 item. I really don't see the problem with having odd value items.

[bekeleven]

But then you run into the opposite problem: Hand out a +1 stat item and suddenly a 17 is a cheaper 18 and a 19 is a cheaper 20.

Hand out a +2 item and that's no longer true.

Hit a level that's a multiple of 4 and that's not true.

Also... don't hand out a +1 item and that's not true. If players are crafting them themselves, then it's resources that the higher-statted player could be using to craft a +2 item, so you're not unbalancing anything.

[Urpriest]

What trouble, precisely? I think every DM I've played with has allowed them; I consider myself to have a fairly high degree of system mastery, and I would have absolutely no qualms about allowing them. It's really not a big deal, and it makes players happy. I see no issue with this.

And pretty much everyone who had similar experiences to mine (specifically, following the 3.0-3.5 transition, reading Dragon over that time, etc...basically, people who experienced this edition as it came out) would have had it drummed into their heads that odd stat bonuses are a bad idea, and would be uncomfortable with seeing them implemented. I can't think of anyone I've played with experienced enough that I would trust them to homebrew who also would be ok with odd stat bonus items.

Think about it this way: Dragon did a whole bunch of silly broken things, but they never even touched odd stat bonuses in the 3.5 era. Odd stat bonuses are pretty much universally the sign of incompetent homebrew: think of any homebrew race you've seen with +1 to a stat ("it's a quarter-orc!") or the sorts of magic item people with too much MMO experience put together like breastplates that give +1 Dex...odd stat bonuses are really really common among people who don't understand the system, essentially. Risking that association, and weirding out what (if not from your personal experience, from the forum) you should recognize is a substantial subset of people who might join your games, that's the sort of thing that needs some justification.

And that's the real problem. There's simply no point to odd stat items. The game works fine without them. They don't add any new story possibilities, they don't address the balance problems with 3.5 in any way. They're a totally unnecessary level of granularity, and they're introduced at the risk of making everyone have dandwiki flashbacks.

[TuggyNE]

How on earth does it do that? The character with a 17 has to spend 1000gp to get even with the character who has 18, and where the character with 18 can spend 4000gp to get up to a +5 bonus, the character with 17 has to spend 9000gp to get that. I really don't understand how you think that.

In the current system, the character with a 17 would have to spend 4000 or 16000 gp respectively to be equal to a character with an 18. In exchange, in either case, they can reduce point buy costs substantially or make do with a lower roll, as appropriate; allowing custom items of +1, +3, etc makes it substantially cheaper to make do with less, and depending on how much you value point buy, this may shift the cost/benefit ratio from "nah" to "yes lots!"

[bekeleven]

In the current system, the character with a 17 would have to spend 4000 or 16000 gp respectively to be equal to a character with an 18. In exchange, in either case, they can reduce point buy costs substantially or make do with a lower roll, as appropriate; allowing custom items of +1, +3, etc makes it substantially cheaper to make do with less, and depending on how much you value point buy, this may shift the cost/benefit ratio from "nah" to "yes lots!"

Yeah, balance changes will change balance. I still don't see why 17 shouldn't be better than 16 sometimes. Every 4 levels the balance reverses anyway, so just wait 52 encounters and your strategy was right all along (for the next 52).

[eggynack]

And that's the real problem. There's simply no point to odd stat items. The game works fine without them. They don't add any new story possibilities, they don't address the balance problems with 3.5 in any way. They're a totally unnecessary level of granularity, and they're introduced at the risk of making everyone have dandwiki flashbacks.
I think they do add one or two things. First, they make it so that starting stats aren't so incentivized towards even numbers, because I've always felt that that was a bit of a weird thing. Second, it allows access to the couple of things that odd ability scores grant. They're not the biggest things, but honestly I don't feel that not having odd stat items has much of a point.

You've offered this issue of perception, but that doesn't seem like a huge problem, especially if it's the player asking for the item. Odd score items have bad associations, but maybe they shouldn't. I don't think they should necessarily be as common as even score items, but having them doesn't hurt the game much. Is there any real problem with the idea apart from the fact that people think that it's a bad idea? Or, to put it a different way, would you be alright with a +1 dex item if people didn't consider you a rube for using it?

Edit
In the current system, the character with a 17 would have to spend 4000 or 16000 gp respectively to be equal to a character with an 18. In exchange, in either case, they can reduce point buy costs substantially or make do with a lower roll, as appropriate; allowing custom items of +1, +3, etc makes it substantially cheaper to make do with less, and depending on how much you value point buy, this may shift the cost/benefit ratio from "nah" to "yes lots!"
I think the question here is how this would specifically impact the game. If there were odd stat items, would you always pick a 17 over an 18, would you still pick an 18 most of the time, but pick 17 with somewhat greater frequency, or would you sometimes pick one or the other, depending on the situation? I think it's the third option, and I don't see the problem with that.

[Qwertystop]

Basically comes down to that if you have an even score, an odd bonus gives almost nothing (carrying capacity if it's Strength, or prerequisites if you have exactly the right score and are getting the minimum bonus to qualify - both things that any bonus gives equally). If you have an odd score, it gives you more - everything that scales off the modifier.

[Pex]

In one of my group's campaigns everyone in the party got one as a reward for defending a city against an attack by druids, werewolves, hobgoblins, and demons. You could choose for which ability score you want. I did point out to the DM a +1 enhancement is useless unless you had an odd ability score (disclosure I had all evens) and other players concurred, but he was insistent on it.

Since I already had a Charisma enhancement item for my Oracle I chose Constitution. It does absolutely nothing for me. Actually almost nothing. It does mean I can go one more hit point into negative before death. (Pathfinder game) I just realized that now at this very moment. :smallbiggrin: I value it for roleplay as it is an Official Medal.

[Fiery Diamond]

Basically comes down to that if you have an even score, an odd bonus gives almost nothing (carrying capacity if it's Strength, or prerequisites if you have exactly the right score and are getting the minimum bonus to qualify - both things that any bonus gives equally). If you have an odd score, it gives you more - everything that scales off the modifier.

That's the whole #$%^ point: feature, not bug.

[georgie_leech]

Are there any arguments against odd enhancement bonuses to ability scores that don't also apply to odd inherent bonuses, like the Tomes of [Stat] +1's?

[eggynack]

Are there any arguments against odd enhancement bonuses to ability scores that don't also apply to odd inherent bonuses, like the Tomes of [Stat] +1's?
Also the +1's that occur every four levels.

[Dimers]

I've used it on three characters in two campaigns under different DMs, and I'd mention the idea to my players if I were running. Ain't a big deal. I mean, what's messed up isn't "this item benefits Bob The Odd more than it benefits Alice The Even", the problem is the base game being built such that there's a difference between odd and even numbers in the first place. That's what allows the inconsistency to arise (as it already does).

[Qwertystop]

Are there any arguments against odd enhancement bonuses to ability scores that don't also apply to odd inherent bonuses, like the Tomes of [Stat] +1's?

Nothing comes to mind immediately... I can sort of see one thing, though, which is that the permanence of Inherent bonuses might...

Blech. Tip-of-my-tongue, but I can't think of the phrasing.

The big thing for me is that the +1 items, in-character (in non-Strength, non-prereq cases) are completely useless to one person and noticeably helpful to another when there's no difference in their ability to do <thing covered by score> without the item. The only difference between a 14 and 15 Wis in-character that's reflected in actual capabilities, assuming no feats with 15 Wis as a prereq, is a slight resilience to forms of Wis damage that do non-random amounts.

[Dimers]

The big thing for me is that the +1 items, in-character (in non-Strength, non-prereq cases) are completely useless to one person and noticeably helpful to another when there's no difference in their ability to do <thing covered by score> without the item. The only difference between a 14 and 15 Wis in-character that's reflected in actual capabilities, assuming no feats with 15 Wis as a prereq, is a slight resilience to forms of Wis damage that do non-random amounts.

Two level-3 clerics with +1 Wisdom modifiers go adventuring together. They slay a lot of monsters and rescue a prince, and suddenly they level up. One gets more L2 spells than the other (as well as a better Sense of people's Motives, better perception generally, better professional skills, and more willpower). Why? I mean, obviously in game terms one had a 13 stat before level-up and the other had a 12, but ...

The issue is that the odd/even split exists at all, not that certain magic items make the split more obvious.

[Fitz10019]

OP here, thanks for the interesting discussion.

So, if you have a party with 2 dex-based meleers, and the party finds a bracelet of Dex+1, it would be too meta (or too immersion-breaking) if both characters weren't equally interested in it. When it's Dex +2, both are always interested. Perhaps a +1 [ability score] should only accompany another magical effect, just as a Flaming enchantment requires a +1 enchantment bonus on a weapon, so there is always a potential interest for any character (and you can hide the meta).

My first thought was that 1000gp was too low - I was thinking 2000gp. I think that's a sign of guilt -- like I know it's 'wrong' to get a +1 [ability score] item, and I'm assuaging my conscience by pricing it higher.

[eggynack]

The issue is that the odd/even split exists at all, not that certain magic items make the split more obvious.
Yeah, that's definitely a true thing. The fact that increasing your score by a point only really does anything about half the time makes no sense.



So, if you have a party with 2 dex-based meleers, and the party finds a bracelet of Dex+1, it would be too meta (or too immersion-breaking) if both characters weren't equally interested in it. When it's Dex +2, both are always interested. Perhaps a +1 [ability score] should only accompany another magical effect, just as a Flaming enchantment requires a +1 enchantment bonus on a weapon, so there is always a potential interest for any character (and you can hide the meta).
I obviously disagree, as I'm on the other side of this thing. Before deciding that it's too meta for this item to be more valuable for one character than another, ask yourself why it's more valuable. First, let's assume one character with 16 dexterity and one with 17. In this case, the character with 17 is gaining an advantage because he has a higher dexterity, and thus deserves such a bonus more. Then, let's assume one character with 17 dexterity, and one with 18. In that case, the character with 17 dexterity is forced to pay in order to gain the benefit of what the character with 18 dexterity had naturally, and he had to go without the higher mod until he could get the item. It's not that hard to get a +1 item, presumably, but it might be more difficult to do the same for a +3 or +5. In either case, I think it makes logical sense for the bonus to be more worthwhile on one character than the other.

[ericgrau]

Even scores are usually better than odd ones even though odd ones sometimes help. The advantage of going up to an odd number isn't nothing, but it certainly isn't as nice as the advantage of going up to an even number. It might be nice if odd ones meant more, but if so they should do so without item tax help.

So a +1 is worth somewhere between 1,000 gp and 4,000 gp and closer to 4,000 gp. Maybe you could do something like 3,000 gp for a +1, 14,000 gp for a +3 and 32,000 gp for +5. Whatever the price is, like every custom item, it should be a tough choice. If people are grabbing multiple like candy you've made it too cheap, and if no one wants one you've made it too expensive.

[eggynack]

So a +1 is worth somewhere between 1,000 gp and 4,000 gp and closer to 4,000 gp. Maybe you could do something like 3,000 gp for a +1, 14,000 gp for a +3 and 32,000 gp for +5. Whatever the price is it should be, like every custom item, it should be a tough choice. If people are grabbing multiple like candy you've made it too cheap, and if no one wants one you've made it too expensive.
Why should odd boosters cost more than even boosters, in terms of the formula used? It seems like the downside is built into the thing, as you need an extra point in the stat in question in order to make use of an odd ability booster.

[Afgncaap5]

This is the kind of magic item that I might let a character find in an ancient ruin that had wizards capable of magic no longer known to modern spell casters. I wouldn't let a player find one in a regular old magic shoppe, though; something about it just puzzles modern mages.

If a player wants to make one for themselves? I wouldn't allow them to do it on their own. They'd need to make some combination of Spellcraft or Knowledge (Arcana) checks first, and that would likely lead them to learn that while such items existed in ancient times, they needed a certain type of magic or ritual or secret ingredient. In short, the player has just given me their own plot hook for a one-shot quest, something that I as a GM need from time to time.

I'll then make the player earn it. The quest will involve a certain amount of risk that, while appropriate to level, will contain a bit more in terms of chance for loss and failure than usual. The required ingredient to the magical item will be a mostly optional section of the ancient facility that contains a puzzle or challenge, possibly one that involves a use of the very skill that they're trying to boost. Want a +1 item to boost your Wisdom? Well, I hope you can follow the footprints of the invisible hunter as he follows you from empty portrait to empty portrait. Want a +1 item to boost your Constitution? Here's hoping that your character can chug a flagon of ale faster than this ancient statue of a dwarf.

At the end of the day... is such an item balanced? Probably not, not really. But if my player can earn it and is willing to go through all that to get it? Well, sure thing. I'll grant it.

[eggynack]

At the end of the day... is such an item balanced? Probably not, not really.
Why not? I can see a justification for some things, but imbalance really isn't one of them. Best case scenario, it provides a marginally cheaper way for a character with an odd ability score to gain a change in modifier. It's really not a big deal.

[ericgrau]

Why should odd boosters cost more than even boosters, in terms of the formula used? It seems like the downside is built into the thing, as you need an extra point in the stat in question in order to make use of an odd ability booster.
Regardless of how you slice it, the odd-even +1 is certainly worth more than the even-odd +1. Anything else is a problem with the system or something else not the item.

It especially falls apart with rolled stats, but even with point buy someone who can't quite afford an even stat with the point buy system could take advantage of +1 items to get close in 1-2 stats with point buy then up them soon after with only a little gold. It's especially good with your primary stat, which might become odd from the every 4 level bump. And that's the stat that matters most. So there's still a way to take advantage of it.

Regardless of how you figure it, once people favor odd +X over even +X you've made it too cheap. Which will happen with the normal formula. They need to be about equally chosen to be fair which requires a small price bump. You could make them more expensive with rolled stats than point buy if you want, but even with point buy the regular formula is too low.

[Drachasor]

Regardless of how you slice it, the odd-even +1 is certainly worth more than the even-odd +1. Anything else is a problem with the system or something else not the item.

It especially falls apart with rolled stats, but even with point buy someone who can't quite afford an even stat could take advantage of +1 items to get close in 1-2 stats then up them soon after with only a little gold. So there's still a way to take advantage of it.

Regardless of how you figure it, once people favor odd +X over even +X you've made it too cheap. Which will happen with the normal formula. They need to be about equally chosen to be fair which requires a small price bump. You could make them more expensive with rolled stats than point buy if you want, but even with point buy the regular formula is a little too low.

Except the person spent extra build resources getting that odd stat in the first place. The person with the even stat one higher paid even more, but has a +1 modifier advantage. The person who paid for a stat one lower, has the same modifier, and spent less to get it. Why should the odd-stat person have to pay just as much for a magic item as the person with an even stat one below?

Especially if total bonuses are capped at +6, I'm not seeing how odd numbers are favored here. The overall effect is tiny and even numbers are still more advantageous.

[eggynack]

Regardless of how you slice it, the odd-even +1 is certainly worth more than the even-odd +1. Anything else is a problem with the system or something else not the item.

It especially falls apart with rolled stats, but even with point buy someone who can't quite afford an even stat with the point buy system could take advantage of +1 items to get close in 1-2 stats with point buy then up them soon after with only a little gold. It's especially good with your primary stat, which might become odd from the every 4 level bump. And that's the stat that matters most. So there's still a way to take advantage of it.

Regardless of how you figure it, once people favor odd +X over even +X you've made it too cheap. Which will happen with the normal formula. They need to be about equally chosen to be fair which requires a small price bump. You could make them more expensive with rolled stats than point buy if you want, but even with point buy the regular formula is too low.
I think people would take advantage of it. I just don't think they would always take advantage of it, and that's pretty much the ideal way for things to be, where the two options are advantageous in different situations. As is, +1 stat items seem to be a logical way to reward people for having odd stats, which is something that the game doesn't currently reward much at all. It makes much more sense to me that someone would just be able to correct odd scores gained through rolled stats with a bit of cash than that you're basically just stuck with those odd scores unless it's a stat that you're willing to invest inherent or level up bonuses in. Basically, I don't think you're correct that odd bonuses would be so much more powerful than even ones that they'd overwhelm the even versions.

[Seerow]

I can see the arguments for the +1 being useless to an individual. This is a great reason to not have the +1 on random drops or the like.

I however have no problem with a player making/commissioning a custom item giving an odd number to a stat. If the player actively wants it, it's because they had an odd number in their stat anyway. And remember in point buy, the cost increases when going up to an odd number (ie it costs 1 point going up to 14, 2 points going to 15), so it's not like a character with odd stats are coming out way ahead in attribute points.

Compare a 32 point buy:
18/16/14/8/8/8
vs
17/15/15/11/8/8

Apply 4,000gp worth of +stat items:
20/16/14/8/8/8
vs
18/16/16/12/8/8

Apply 12,000gp worth of +stat items
20/18/16/8/8/8 (1000g leftover)
20/16/16/12/8/8

Basically at 4000g you're trading a +1 on your primary stat for a +1 tertiary and +2 quarternary stat.

At 12,000g you're trading a +1 on your secondary stat for +2 on a quaternary stat.

It's a benefit for the monks and paladins of the world, who need a lot of stats at decent values. For anyone who only needs 1, 2, or even 3 stats, just going with the normal gear and sticking with even attribute values still comes out ahead. I don't see how this is a game breaking side effect, or one that is indicative of horrible game balance sense and amateur homebrewers (as some in the thread have indicated).

[Cuaqchi]

I can see the arguments for the +1 being useless to an individual. This is a great reason to not have the +1 on random drops or the like.

I however have no problem with a player making/commissioning a custom item giving an odd number to a stat. If the player actively wants it, it's because they had an odd number in their stat anyway. And remember in point buy, the cost increases when going up to an odd number (ie it costs 1 point going up to 14, 2 points going to 15), so it's not like a character with odd stats are coming out way ahead in attribute points.

Compare a 32 point buy:
18/16/14/8/8/8
vs
17/15/15/11/8/8

Apply 4,000gp worth of +stat items:
20/16/14/8/8/8
vs
18/16/16/12/8/8

Apply 12,000gp worth of +stat items
20/18/16/8/8/8 (1000g leftover)
20/16/16/12/8/8

Basically at 4000g you're trading a +1 on your primary stat for a +1 tertiary and +2 quarternary stat.

At 12,000g you're trading a +1 on your secondary stat for +2 on a quaternary stat.

It's a benefit for the monks and paladins of the world, who need a lot of stats at decent values. For anyone who only needs 1, 2, or even 3 stats, just going with the normal gear and sticking with even attribute values still comes out ahead. I don't see how this is a game breaking side effect, or one that is indicative of horrible game balance sense and amateur homebrewers (as some in the thread have indicated).

Now you've done it... Giving nice things to Monks/Paladins is against the rules. You will be fined 1 Internet for your insolence.

[Sith_Happens]

I'm currently playing in my second and third campaign that allow +1, +3, and +5 ability-boosters. In the ones that used rolled stats it let(s) our odd base scores actually do anything besides the fact that most feat-writers are total party poopers, and in the one that used point buy it means we don't have to wait until 8th level for our level-up ability score points to actually do anything.

Personally, I find the arguments against such items completely inane, in that they all apply equally well to the +2, +4, and +6 items.

[georgie_leech]

Personally, I find the arguments against such items completely inane, in that they all apply equally well to the +2, +4, and +6 items.

Eh, there is the fact that a magic item with an odd enhancement bonus has different mechanical effects on two different PC's (a +1 could raise everything connected to that stat by a point or change nothing but how much ability damage they can take), but I find it more interesting that any argument against odd enhancement also applies to odd inherent bonuses as well.

[Drachasor]

Personally, I find the arguments against such items completely inane, in that they all apply equally well to the +2, +4, and +6 items.

That's what's so amusing about them.

Really the only thing keeping people from going from the current stat system to one where Bonus = Stat is ability damage. Outside of that I don't think it matters.

Hmm, but if you halved all ability damage that would roughly work out with a -6 being treated as 0. Of course, ability damage is kind of a broken subsystem anyway, imho.

[Firechanter]

Yeah I just wanted to add something similar.
I'd allow any odd stat booster in a game with rolled stats. (Though it's kind of moot since as a DM I'd never demand rolled stats...)

With PB, as I said I'll allow a single +1 item so that the level 4 boost is actually good for something.
Other odd boosters aren't so important. You'll never need a +3, since at the levels you can afford one, your stat will be even anyway.
A +5 might be nice to have at 12, but before long you can just afford a +6 and be done with it.

[Qwertystop]

This is the kind of magic item that I might let a character find in an ancient ruin that had wizards capable of magic no longer known to modern spell casters. I wouldn't let a player find one in a regular old magic shoppe, though; something about it just puzzles modern mages.

I like this one, actually. IC, it's an odd bit of magic - easier to make than the normal Gloves of Dexterity or whatever, for some people it does exactly the same thing as them, but for others it just gives them a tiny amount of resilience to clumsiness-inducing magic and nothing else.

[Bronk]

I would allow +1 items if a player really wanted one, although I would make them commission it or make it themselves.

I've always just assumed that the switch to items with even bonuses stemmed from the switch from AD&D to 3.X. In the older system, the scores you rolled didn't improve at higher levels, each +1 gave you a definite improvement, and the maximum of any score was a godlike 25. A +1 bonus could be the difference between a minimal or massive damage boost, being subject to or completely immune to illusions, and so on.

[Agincourt]

OP here, thanks for the interesting discussion.

So, if you have a party with 2 dex-based meleers, and the party finds a bracelet of Dex+1, it would be too meta (or too immersion-breaking) if both characters weren't equally interested in it. When it's Dex +2, both are always interested. Perhaps a +1 [ability score] should only accompany another magical effect, just as a Flaming enchantment requires a +1 enchantment bonus on a weapon, so there is always a potential interest for any character (and you can hide the meta).

My first thought was that 1000gp was too low - I was thinking 2000gp. I think that's a sign of guilt -- like I know it's 'wrong' to get a +1 [ability score] item, and I'm assuaging my conscience by pricing it higher.

I don't think there is anything meta about it. The player who is not interested in the +1 item just does not feel all the different when they put the item on. If the other character feels advantaged, why wouldn't he defer to the party member who actually feels a benefit? This is no more immersion breaking for me than a character who is not interested in a Periapt of Wisdom. "It doesn't seem to be helping me any, but if you say it makes you a better spell-caster, I say you should have it, Mr. Cleric."

[Talderas]

What trouble, precisely? I think every DM I've played with has allowed them; I consider myself to have a fairly high degree of system mastery, and I would have absolutely no qualms about allowing them. It's really not a big deal, and it makes players happy. I see no issue with this.

Even values provide numeric increases while odd values meet prerequisites. Odd stat items break this balance by decreasing the effective cost of attributes at character creation.

Point buy really makes this a visible problem. Let's say you're a ranger and you need 14 wisdom. When you create your character you're trying to decide between 12, 13, or 14 wisdom. Without +1 items you take 12 wisdom and 14 constitution and spend 4,000gp for a +2 item or you spent 4 more points for 14 wisdom and instead have 12 constitution in which case you need to pay 4,000gp to bring constitution up to 14. With the +1 items you can instead take 13 wisdom and 13 constitution and spend 2,000gp to increase both to 14. The items provide significant benefit at a far cheaper cost than you have with even only items.

At lower levels this means that a character gets a performance boost far sooner than they would normally be able to do so due to the reduced cost. It also means that overall a character is benefited by having odd stats at the start. At the upper end of levels you've pretty much discouraged the usage of +6 items. If you can get a more effective character by permitting the lowering of your modifier by 1 (thus making a +5 item more valuable), you've basically made +6 items pointless by causing them to be 11k more expensive than the +5.

The items themselves are bad because they are binary in their usefulness. They are either functionally equivalent to the item with one less or one more. With +1s specifically it means you can be wearing magic items that provide no benefit.

In 4th ed Shadowrun, I've drastically increases a character's potency and versatility by rearranging how points are assigned. By lowering skills and compensating by increasing attributes directly and indirectly through the bonus provided by equipment you can increase both depth and breadth of the character's character. The same principles apply with D&D though not to the extreme you could see in 4th ed SR.

--


Eh, there is the fact that a magic item with an odd enhancement bonus has different mechanical effects on two different PC's (a +1 could raise everything connected to that stat by a point or change nothing but how much ability damage they can take), but I find it more interesting that any argument against odd enhancement also applies to odd inherent bonuses as well.

Inherent bonuses (137,500gp for +5) use a different formula and are drastically more expensive than enhancement bonuses (36,000gp for +6, 25,000gp for +5). They also function in ways different from enhancement bonuses. Those differences alone makes most of the arguments against +1s for enhancement not viable arguments against +1 inherents.

--


I don't think there is anything meta about it. The player who is not interested in the +1 item just does not feel all the different when they put the item on. If the other character feels advantaged, why wouldn't he defer to the party member who actually feels a benefit? This is no more immersion breaking for me than a character who is not interested in a Periapt of Wisdom. "It doesn't seem to be helping me any, but if you say it makes you a better spell-caster, I say you should have it, Mr. Cleric."

The answer you're seeking, "People are loot whores and want their shinies and Precious."

[Agincourt]

The answer you're seeking, "People are loot whores and want their shinies and Precious."
That is definitely not the answer I'm seeking. That is not my play-style. I have never played a character who wants magic items in spite of them not providing a benefit. I play characters who are adventuring with their friends. In real life, I do not deprive my friends of objects or food that they would enjoy more than me.

More importantly, that is not the answer I'm seeking because it does not answer why every character must benefit equally from a magic item. The objection seems to be along the lines of, "We cannot have +1 magic items because then some characters will not want the +1 magic item." And my response is, "so what?" Not every character wants every magic item anyway. You seem to be saying that we need to reward greed. I actually think that's a good argument against your position.

[Fax Celestis]

Even values provide numeric increases while odd values meet prerequisites. Odd stat items break this balance by decreasing the effective cost of attributes at character creation.

...at the cost of impacting your WBL later. It's a trade.


Point buy really makes this a visible problem. Let's say you're a ranger and you need 14 wisdom. When you create your character you're trying to decide between 12, 13, or 14 wisdom. Without +1 items you take 12 wisdom and 14 constitution and spend 4,000gp for a +2 item or you spent 4 more points for 14 wisdom and instead have 12 constitution in which case you need to pay 4,000gp to bring constitution up to 14. With the +1 items you can instead take 13 wisdom and 13 constitution and spend 2,000gp to increase both to 14. The items provide significant benefit at a far cheaper cost than you have with even only items.Except that when you want to buff later, you have to buy +3 items instead of +2s, so you have to shell out an additional 5k per stat.

[eggynack]

Point buy really makes this a visible problem. Let's say you're a ranger and you need 14 wisdom. When you create your character you're trying to decide between 12, 13, or 14 wisdom. Without +1 items you take 12 wisdom and 14 constitution and spend 4,000gp for a +2 item or you spent 4 more points for 14 wisdom and instead have 12 constitution in which case you need to pay 4,000gp to bring constitution up to 14. With the +1 items you can instead take 13 wisdom and 13 constitution and spend 2,000gp to increase both to 14. The items provide significant benefit at a far cheaper cost than you have with even only items.
Is that quantity of increased value really that big of a deal? This is a new item. That means that, if it's going to say any play at all in an optimized game, there must logically be situations where it'll be superior to all other options. In this case, the character is getting 2000 extra GP to work with. So, good for him. Is that really a problem?

I mean, if you really think about it, you can easily construct a similar justification for the non-existence of existing items. Let's say that there were only +4 ability score boosters, with no +2's in sight. Without +2's, our ranger would have to choose between 12 wisdom and 16 constitution, and 16 wisdom and 12 constitution, and eventually getting both up to 16 would cost 16,000 GP. However, with the addition of +2 items to the game, you can instead take 14 wisdom and 14 constitution, incurring a point buy cost two fewer than what you otherwise would, and pay 8,000 GP to get two 16's at a far cheaper cost. Thus, +2's must be ridiculous, even more ridiculous than the +1's you've presented, and they shouldn't be allowed into a game.

Edit:
With +1s specifically it means you can be wearing magic items that provide no benefit.
I could say the same of a ring of the beast. Some characters will sometimes benefit more than other characters from magic items. Sometimes they'll benefit infinitely more, because the item just doesn't do something for everyone. It's how the game works sometimes.

[Dimers]

Just last night in a PbP game I posted about not wanting a magic item. This was the first magic item we found at all (Dark Sun campaign is low-magic), and its special effects were cold resistance and a once-per-day mobility power. Since I have the most hit points and most of my abilities are position-independent, I suggested that the party rogue should get the item instead. Sure, it'd help me a little -- like a +1 bonus to an even-numbered attribute would -- but chances are, it'd help somebody else more.

[Talderas]

...at the cost of impacting your WBL later. It's a trade.

Except that when you want to buff later, you have to buy +3 items instead of +2s, so you have to shell out an additional 5k per stat.

It only negatively impacts WBL if you're just increasing one attribute. It's a net gain to WBL once you factor it over increasing multiple attributes. You can start out with more attributes higher and use a lower cost to increase them to comparable levels. That's just the nature of an exponential cost increase instead of linear. A +4 and a +6 is more expensive than two +5s.

[georgie_leech]

Inherent bonuses (137,500gp for +5) use a different formula and are drastically more expensive than enhancement bonuses (36,000gp for +6, 25,000gp for +5). They also function in ways different from enhancement bonuses. Those differences alone makes most of the arguments against +1s for enhancement not viable arguments against +1 inherents.

--





I'm not seeing why "they're more expensive than enhancement" changes the argument over whether or not a +1 item is a good idea. It still means that some magic items have basically no effect on some people (What benefit does the 10 DEX Fighter get from reading a Manual of Quickness of Action +1?); it still means that you can spread your points out more in point buy (the fact that cost is linear addressed the varying cost of increasing different attributes though). Maybe you could explain in which ways inherent and enhancement bonuses are different that justifies that?

[ericgrau]

In this case, the character is getting 2000 extra GP to work with. So, good for him. Is that really a problem?
Ah good there's an amount. 2,000 gp extra. So charging 2,000 gp more, or 1,000 gp each, is too much for point buy because no one will use it. 0 gp more is too little for point buy because everyone will use it. Besides not matching other items, making everyone stronger via items or feats or anything else is a Bad Idea. It becomes item tax because they need the item to keep up and then they have fewer items remaining to pick from when building a character. Though not as horrible as other item tax because it's a couple thousand gp.

So... split the difference, 1500 gp for a +1 in point buy and call it a day? Scaling that for +3 I would guess around 6,000 gp, and 24,000 gp for +5. Rolled stats would lead to higher costs, but at least these numbers are closer.

[Talderas]

I'm not seeing why "they're more expensive than enhancement" changes the argument over whether or not a +1 item is a good idea. It still means that some magic items have basically no effect on some people (What benefit does the 10 DEX Fighter get from reading a Manual of Quickness of Action +1?); it still means that you can spread your points out more in point buy (the fact that cost is linear addressed the varying cost of increasing different attributes though). Maybe you could explain in which ways inherent and enhancement bonuses are different that justifies that?

Point buy attributes are not a linear growth. They are exponential just like magic item costs, just not to the same degree. If they were linear then it would cost 10 points to raise an attribute to 18 and not 16. That means the incremental cost of raising a single attribute from 17 to 18 could instead be used to raise one attribute 3 points, three attributes 1 point, one attribute 2 points and one attribute 1 point, or two attributes each 1 point. In all of these cases the cost is the same and the output is greater in volume.

As I said, raising a single attribute is more costly with odd items but raising multiple attributes makes it greatly more cost effective because you're eliminating spending to the cap which is the single most expensive upgrade in an exponential growth. The set of character where you only want to raise one attribute is pretty much limited to wild-shaping druids with natural spell. Every other class gains benefit from increasing multiple attributes, even those that can use transmutation to alter their physical stats.

[Fax Celestis]

It only negatively impacts WBL if you're just increasing one attribute. It's a net gain to WBL once you factor it over increasing multiple attributes. You can start out with more attributes higher and use a lower cost to increase them to comparable levels. That's just the nature of an exponential cost increase instead of linear. A +4 and a +6 is more expensive than two +5s.

I'm not sure why that matters, frankly. I understand what you're saying, but I don't see why I should care.

[Talderas]

I'm not sure why that matters, frankly. I understand what you're saying, but I don't see why I should care.

Because those are the assumption under which the entire system was built. You can't just simply permit odd value +attribute items without looking at the costs of increasing attributes in general. At the very least, inherent bonuses are over priced with the existence of +1 attribute items.

One of the unintended side effects is going to likely be an unanticipated increase in the power of spellcasters. They're going to see their spell DCs being harder to beat by 5% sooner than is supposed to happen. That would require either monkeying with stats by DMs or an increase in the encounter difficulty for the wizard which goes back into the whole linear fighter quadratic wizard issue.

[Fax Celestis]

At the very least, inherent bonuses are over priced with the existence of +1 attribute items.I wouldn't think so, considering by the time you can afford insight items, you have +6 enhancement items. Plus, they work on different bonus types, so they stack. They're incomparable.

[The Grue]

I've been in this argument before and I don't really want to get into again. I'll just say that the reason odd-numbered stat-boosting items don't exist is because they would do different things for different people. If a stat boost is even, it gives the exact same increase no matter who puts it on.

Is it your position that magical equipment must have identical effects no matter what character uses them?

[Hurnn]

Because those are the assumption under which the entire system was built. You can't just simply permit odd value +attribute items without looking at the costs of increasing attributes in general. At the very least, inherent bonuses are over priced with the existence of +1 attribute items.

One of the unintended side effects is going to likely be an unanticipated increase in the power of spellcasters. They're going to see their spell DCs being harder to beat by 5% sooner than is supposed to happen. That would require either monkeying with stats by DMs or an increase in the encounter difficulty for the wizard which goes back into the whole linear fighter quadratic wizard issue.

So while I'm sure no one actually uses it elite array have quite a few odd numbered stats in it, which I find interesting being the system rewards even numbers. So + 1 items would be a great boon to them where as + even is meh. There is also the point that is being ignored in the arguments against; Your 4th lvl +1s make your +1 stat items potentially useless for another 4 levels.

Beyond all that there is the weirdness of both point buy and elite array, elite is 1.5 stat points below your statistical average on 4d6 -lowest, or that in a 25 point buy having 18 is 6.5 points worse than statistical average, and no build is possible that does better than less than the average.

[Qwertystop]

Is it your position that magical equipment must have identical effects no matter what character uses them?

If it gives bonuses relating to something that every character has, yes.

There's no problem with a +X Con item not helping Undead, or a +30' fly-speed item not helping something without a fly speed, but this feels like a +1 AC item with the side-note "roll 1d2 when first trying to use it, on a 1 it does nothing".

[Urpriest]

I think they do add one or two things. First, they make it so that starting stats aren't so incentivized towards even numbers, because I've always felt that that was a bit of a weird thing.

Second, it allows access to the couple of things that odd ability scores grant. They're not the biggest things, but honestly I don't feel that not having odd stat items has much of a point.

Only to a minor degree. Even if you change over stat items, you've still got stat-boosting spells, class features like rage, item emulators like VoP, racial bonuses...basically, if you add odd stat items, you have to answer the question of why everything else in the game defaults to even stat bonuses.

By contrast, with the current setup, things are quite simple: ability scores are like XP, ability bonuses are like levels. You only get "ability score XP" (odd values) from permanent stuff like levels and inherent bonuses, while you can get a boost to your "ability score level" through various sources.

Basically, the rules have a grammar to them, a way they represent things. Screw with that grammar and you have to come up with something new to take its place.



You've offered this issue of perception, but that doesn't seem like a huge problem, especially if it's the player asking for the item. Odd score items have bad associations, but maybe they shouldn't. I don't think they should necessarily be as common as even score items, but having them doesn't hurt the game much. Is there any real problem with the idea apart from the fact that people think that it's a bad idea? Or, to put it a different way, would you be alright with a +1 dex item if people didn't consider you a rube for using it?


It's especially a problem if the player asks for the item, if they're a new player. Saying no to that sort of thing teaches the new player to watch out for homebrew and third-party things that give odd ability bonuses, and to judge them more harshly. When players are too inexperienced to tell balance based on the state of the rules, having a shorthand like "if it gives an odd bonus to an ability score, or uses improper grammar, or isn't written like rules text..." is enormously helpful.

Basically, it's like journals in the sciences. Submitting your work to a journal doesn't inherently make that work better, but it's a barrier to entry that weeds out crackpots who can't get organized enough to participate in the community.

Think about it this way: there are probably some 4e monsters that can be run fine in a 3.5 game with a few modifications. You'd have to pick a CR for them, use their "level" for any effects asking for HD, turn some of their defenses into saves, and a few other things. You could definitely run them without doing a full 3.5 conversion, just taking their stats at face value, and given how unbalanced most 3.5 monsters are you won't run into any novel issues there.

Imagine if your DM did that. Are you telling me that it wouldn't make you even a bit nauseous, even if the monster itself worked fine?

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Screwing with the grammar of the system, the way it represents things, is not something that you do just because you want to balance something as irrelevant as odd scores and even scores in point-buy.

[Sith_Happens]

Because those are the assumption under which the entire system was built.

Actually, the system was built under the assumption of rolled attributes, which renders the entirety of your argument moot. Point buy was released in Unearthed Arcana, seven months after Core.

[Urpriest]

Actually, the system was built under the assumption of rolled attributes, which renders the entirety of your argument moot. Point buy was released in Unearthed Arcana, seven months after Core.

Point buy is in the DMG.

[Captnq]

SRD: CREATING MAGIC ITEMS (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm)


Ability bonus (enhancement) Bonus squared × 1,000 gp

I don't see anything that says it has to be in even numbers.

By RAW +1, +3, +5 are perfectly valid, IF YOU ARE ALLOWING ITEM CREATION.

If you aren't, they will never appear when you roll for them randomly.

As for the "game balance" situation, apparently WotC thinks it's such a minor advantage either way as to be unimportant. And I agree. Go ahead, optimize for using odd number stats. When you advance in level and finally get a +1 to an ability, you have to make one of those even, it'll throw everything out of whack.

The most powerful characters are all SAD. That means you'd never hang back anyways. You want every point of that ability you can muster. The only one's who'd really use this are MAD characters and you know what? Usually MAD characters suck. Let them have their 11,000 gp max savings. The wizard only needs Int, most melee combat types use Str, Dex, Con.

So uh... yeah. I guess non-spellcasters can't have nice things?

[eggynack]

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Screwing with the grammar of the system, the way it represents things, is not something that you do just because you want to balance something as irrelevant as odd scores and even scores in point-buy.
It honestly doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Yes, it's a bit out of phase with the rest of the system. The question is whether the thing that is out of phase with the system should necessarily be so. Doing something in a certain way just because it suits some odd D&D based shibboleth just seems wrong to me.

[dascarletm]

I don't see any problem with this.

From what I gather these are the points of contention against odd bonus items.

1: Players can game the system by utilizing odd numbers for a cheaper bonus.

2: It's not natural for DnD Items to give an odd bonus to a stat (for enhancements anyway)

3: This results in items that give some people benefit, while others not a benefit.

My reply to this would be:

1: I don't consider this gaming the system any more than any other optimization. Stat costs in point buy increase non-linearly (not exponentially, just non-linearly)

If you set y=stat gained (ignoring racial mods) and x=point cost it is actually best described as a polynomial graph. (y = -0.034x^2 + 1.163x + 7.901) This gives an R^2 of 0.996 which isn't bad. In reality it is a linear graph that changes into another linear graph at two set points. (y=x+10, to y = 0.857x + 3.142, and y = 0.5x + 9.5).

Stat point increases via enchantment bonus' increase exponentially, bonus squared. Players can game it with even bonuses as well.

If they desire three 16s and can only spend 18 pb they can:
A: buy three 14s for 18 pb and pay 12k gp
B: buy a 16, and two 12's for 18pb and pay 36k in gp.
C: But a 16, a 14, and a 10 for 18pb and pay 56k in gp.
You can still optimize your stat purchases versus gold expenditure to obtain the desired stats for the cheapest price. Adding +1 items is not novel in this. It merely adds more possibilities when balancing pb vs gold expenditure.

2: That is a fine opinion to have. You can like or dislike anything, but that doesn't have any sort of unbalancing effect on the game. With examples of other ways to obtain odd stat increases it's not novel in this aspect either.

3: Yet again, this isn't a novel thing for magic items. A pearl of power for example grants a fighter no benefit for example. It doesn't help with increasing rolls, but it does make aging into middle age not so bad, or possibly more beneficial.

EDIT: To stop being redundant, and to stop my redundancy.

[ericgrau]

IF YOU ARE ALLOWING ITEM CREATION.
That's the problem by right there. Because by default, you aren't. In fact item creation is quite clear that they are only guidelines, everything needs to be run by the DM, and the guidelines are only there to help select a fair price where PCs have a hard time deciding whether or not to buy it. If the guidelines are used to get a cheaper price than that, you're doing it wrong by definition. The guidelines mainly work when there isn't a way to exploit an effect beyond typical items. So we're back to square one.

[Dimers]

A pearl of power for example grants a fighter no benefit for example.

In the games I play, a pearl of power is considered a fighter item, because how else does he convince the cleric and wizard to buff him? :smalltongue:

EDIT: Incidentally, why do you think the stat-bonus spells (Bull's Strength etc.) got changed from +d4+1 to +4 in the change between Third Ed and 3.5? Personally I suspect it was to avoid Maximized Empowered Statbuff kind of stuff and to reduce bookkeeping, not because even-number stat buffs were some sort of inherent goal that they just didn't mention explicitly to anyone ever. I have no more proof than I have eloquence, though.

[dascarletm]

I agree, but mostly I think they changed it for ease of use.

That and not needing to keep recasting it to gain a desired level of bonus.

[Sith_Happens]

Point buy is in the DMG.

...So it is.:smallredface:

It's still presented as a variant rule, though, so my point stands.

[Talderas]

It's still presented as a variant rule, though, so my point stands.

Even as a variant, my point still stands. Gaining an incremental effects with +odd enhancements bonuses is still cheaper than having to use +even to gain it. Enhancement a vastly lower cost for the player than the options that do provide +odd bonus (attribute increases every 4 levels & inherent bonuses).

At the most basic level, a character needs to spend one quarter of the wealth (1,000gp vs 4,000gp) to achieve a +1 modifier if he has an odd stat compared to an even stat character. Aside from the cost balances with the other options, this has some gameplay balances by permitting, most obviously, spell DCs to increase and make them 5% more difficult to resist at levels early than they would othewise reliably be able afford to do so. At low to mid levels that is a huge boon, not so much at high levels. At 4th level you increase you primary stat to an odd level, let's say 19 intelligence for a wizard. A +1 stat item is less than 20% of their WBL by that level and less than 11% of their WBL by level 5. Meanwhile the +2 item would be between 75-80% at level 4 and about 45-50% of their level 5 WBL. Comparatively speaking a +2 item is about 20% of WBL at 7th level and 11% at 9th.

That's a fundamental problem with permitting those cheap items to exist. It mucks about with system balance a lot more than you're realizing and that's what Urpriest and myself are pointing out. Yeah, this would be an awesome change mundane characters and it probably wouldn't be too problematic for them. The problem is that it's also a really awesome thing for casters that's going to upset encounter balance and might lead down the path of throwing more difficult encounters because of the wizard which the mundanes have difficulty keeping up with.

[Fax Celestis]

5%

Don't really think that number is that big of a deal, tbh.

[Agincourt]

Balance just has not been an issue for my gaming group. We've allowed odd numbered stat items for years. As far as unbalancing magic items go, I don't think these are in the top 10%. If anything, it is a minor boost for spellcasters but a better boost for melee characters.

To use an example from a game I'm currently in, we departed from our usual point buy system and instead rolled stats. My highest stat, before racial adjustments, was a 17; I chose to be a sorcerer. My friend decided to be spiked-chain-wielding-knight. His highest stat also happened to be a 17, which he put in strength. Around level 3, it became feasible to buy a +1 stat item. For him, it was a much bigger boost. That extra point of strength modifier gave him a +1 to hit but a +2 to damage, as a two-handed weapon. For me, raising charisma to 18 was not a high priority. It would raise the DCs to resist my spells by 1, but it did not give me any bonus spells. (I was not high enough character level to get bonus 4th level spells.) I did not buy a charisma boosting item until level 4, after leveling had already raised me to an 18, so I bought a +2 cloak of charisma.

I'm not necessarily expecting this anecdote to change your mind. I'm sure people can come up with counter-anecdotes. However, mere assertions that it is unbalancing is not going to convince me that it is so, especially when that runs counter to my experience. You need solid arguments laying out what exactly the problem is.

The closest anyone has come to laying out the problem has been to say it throws off the curve of expected wealth by level. However, this affects everyone in the party equally. Intra-party balance is the more important balancing issue in 3.5. Facing slightly harder encounters is only a balance problem when one character is vastly more powerful than the others. Odd stat point items are most beneficial at low levels (around level 3 or 4), before caster supremacy has really asserted itself.

Also, stating that we do not "understand the system" is more than a little insulting. Some of us in the group have been playing 3rd edition since the beginning, in the year 2000. We are very aware of balance issues of the game. This just is not one of them.

[Urpriest]

It honestly doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Yes, it's a bit out of phase with the rest of the system. The question is whether the thing that is out of phase with the system should necessarily be so. Doing something in a certain way just because it suits some odd D&D based shibboleth just seems wrong to me.

The rules are shibboleths, though. It's not like anything in 3.5 is well designed from an objective, comparing to the best systems on the market today perspective. We continue to play D&D 3.5 because we're comfortable with its particular shibboleths.

[Fax Celestis]

The rules are shibboleths, though. It's not like anything in 3.5 is well designed from an objective, comparing to the best systems on the market today perspective. We continue to play D&D 3.5 because we're comfortable with its particular shibboleths.

Some of us like those shibboleths, which is why we haven't upgraded to 4e or 5e.

[Urpriest]

Some of us like those shibboleths, which is why we haven't upgraded to 4e or 5e.

Yes, that's my point. Throwing out a shibboleth that doesn't hurt the game is just silly from my perspective.

[Talderas]

To use an example from a game I'm currently in, we departed from our usual point buy system and instead rolled stats. My highest stat, before racial adjustments, was a 17; I chose to be a sorcerer. My friend decided to be spiked-chain-wielding-knight. His highest stat also happened to be a 17, which he put in strength. Around level 3, it became feasible to buy a +1 stat item. For him, it was a much bigger boost. That extra point of strength modifier gave him a +1 to hit but a +2 to damage, as a two-handed weapon. For me, raising charisma to 18 was not a high priority. It would raise the DCs to resist my spells by 1, but it did not give me any bonus spells. (I was not high enough character level to get bonus 4th level spells.) I did not buy a charisma boosting item until level 4, after leveling had already raised me to an 18, so I bought a +2 cloak of charisma.

I can't really use this anecdote. For one every character is gaining magic items that great exceed what they should have. A +1 at level 3 is no where near reasonable and a +2 at level 4 is likewise not reasonable when the game system is setup for you to start getting magic weapons at level 5. The +2 cloak of charisma is really designed for level 6-7 at the earliest. This would be a problem if a DM is not building enemies to the party but instead relying on monster CRs.

You say a +1 was useless to you because you were going to increase you charisma to 18 and then get a +2. Consider this. You started with a 16 and increase your charisma to a 17. The +2 would be useless to you and you couldn't afford a +3 so you would still use the +1. You generated the same result for one quarter of the price. You're getting a 5% increase on your DCs earlier than you should be able to.

A 5% increase may not seem like a lot but consider that the best way to increase encounter difficulty is to use a larger number of weaker enemies compared to one or two tough enemies. That means the gap on success for AoE spells is going to be even larger (they have lower saves and you have a higher DC).

[Agincourt]

I can't really use this anecdote. For one every character is gaining magic items that great exceed what they should have. A +1 at level 3 is no where near reasonable and a +2 at level 4 is likewise not reasonable when the game system is setup for you to start getting magic weapons at level 5. The +2 cloak of charisma is really designed for level 6-7 at the earliest. This would be a problem if a DM is not building enemies to the party but instead relying on monster CRs.

You say a +1 was useless to you because you were going to increase you charisma to 18 and then get a +2. Consider this. You started with a 16 and increase your charisma to a 17. The +2 would be useless to you and you couldn't afford a +3 so you would still use the +1. You generated the same result for one quarter of the price. You're getting a 5% increase on your DCs earlier than you should be able to.

A 5% increase may not seem like a lot but consider that the best way to increase encounter difficulty is to use a larger number of weaker enemies compared to one or two tough enemies. That means the gap on success for AoE spells is going to be even larger (they have lower saves and you have a higher DC).

This still is not getting to the fundamentally question of why it is a problem. You merely restate your premise when you say it is "no where near reasonable." Having an 18 strength at level 3 has not been problematic for my group. You need to really explain why that is a huge problem and unbalanced.

As for having a 20 charisma at level 4, I'm still not seeing the problem. Since this was during level 4, the WBL assumes you have a prorated portion of the WBL necessary for level 5. A DM, as always, may choose to limit what magic items are available, but to say that is "not reasonable" is just restating your premise. For your group, level 6-7 may be the ideal time to get a cloak of charisma, but there's nothing inherent about the system that requires it.

As for the hypothetical that I started at 16 charisma, I'm still not seeing the problem. Yes, I would spend 1/4 of the money to get an 18, but I also would have one less 1st level spell per day, and a lower DC. I should expect less benefit if I spend 1/4 of the money.

[eggynack]

Yes, that's my point. Throwing out a shibboleth that doesn't hurt the game is just silly from my perspective.
I don't see why. There are always more shibboleths, and even if there weren't, maybe it's better to be a bit inclusive in our habits anyway, and judge things on their actual merits instead of just picking arbitrary D&D grammar conventions.

[NotScaryBats]

I think a lot of campaigns fail to last 8 levels. So, if you're going from level 1-6, you only get your lvl 4 boost to a stat, and so starting with more than 1 odd number is worthless waste of PB.

This may be min maxing, meta knowledge, or whatever, but I see the reason to not use +1 ability score items, since I would want to keep with the current expectations of the system.

[Sith_Happens]

Even as a variant, my point still stands. Gaining an incremental effects with +odd enhancements bonuses is still cheaper than having to use +even to gain it. Enhancement a vastly lower cost for the player than the options that do provide +odd bonus (attribute increases every 4 levels & inherent bonuses).

So what you're saying is that
1. If I roll a 17 then I shouldn't be able to pay money to have that actually be better than the guy that rolled a 16.
2. If I roll a 15 then I shouldn't be able to pay money to catch up to the guy that rolled a 16.

...Yeah, I'm not buying it.


Snip

As Agincourt already explained, intraparty balance is ultimately the only kind of balance that actually matters, and if anything allowing easier access to higher attributes at low level helps martials a lot more than casters (the difference between a +3 and +4 Strength bonus is way more significant than a +1 DC increase, thanks to how two-handers work).

[The Grue]

If it gives bonuses relating to something that every character has, yes.

There's no problem with a +X Con item not helping Undead, or a +30' fly-speed item not helping something without a fly speed, but this feels like a +1 AC item with the side-note "roll 1d2 when first trying to use it, on a 1 it does nothing".

A +1 Keen Shortsword does nothing(other than a +1 bonus) for a character who takes Improved Critical(Shortsword). A character who does not take said feat gains the benefit of a larger critical range. Is this not an example of a magic item that affects a basic capability of every character, and yet has different effects depending on who holds it?

[Fitz10019]

A +1 Keen Shortsword does nothing(other than a +1 bonus) for a character who takes Improved Critical(Shortsword). A character who does not take said feat gains the benefit of a larger critical range. Is this not an example of a magic item that affects a basic capability of every character, and yet has different effects depending on who holds it?

When you expect both characters to be interested in that weapon, because both have Weapon Focus (Short Sword), this is a nice example -- really on point.

[Talderas]

As Agincourt already explained, intraparty balance is ultimately the only kind of balance that actually matters, and if anything allowing easier access to higher attributes at low level helps martials a lot more than casters (the difference between a +3 and +4 Strength bonus is way more significant than a +1 DC increase, thanks to how two-handers work).

If you're concerned about intraparty balance, why are you encouraging things that help screw with encounter design which is going to slant intraparty balance against the very people you're trying to help? This is why a +1 DC is far more valuable than +2 damage. If you're building encounters to be a challenge you don't use one or two high CR creatures. You use a much larger number of lower CR creatures and that's where a +1 DC has huge impacts.

The reason behind this is that action economy that the party enjoys always slants a fight unfairly towards the players. By providing more opponents that are a lower CR than the party level, you decrease the action economy advantage while maintaining the same encounter level. Without +odd items you still have an advantage to wizards with multiple-target spells because the enemies will have lower saves than enemies with CRs matching the party level. That alone is probably going to account for anywhere from a 5-10% increase in the effectiveness of the wizard's spells due to a lowering of the enemy's save bonus let alone any incidental decreases caused by the lower CR monsters having lower constitution/dexterity/wisdom. You're now adding another 5% by permitting +1 items which allow the wizard to reach DCs earlier than he should be able to bringing the total advantage up to probably about 10-15% when creating a challenging encounter.

10-15% is a pretty huge advantage to gain in encounters especially with the prevalence of save or suck spells, even at lower levels. So the DM needs to throw something else at the party in order to avoid the wizard being able to end encounters with a single spell. Maybe something bigger, maybe a bigger horde. However the one thing I can tell you is that whatever that something is, it's probably going to be a bigger threat and danger to that mundane character.

[RegalKain]

This has been an incredibly interesting conversation, and I can certainly see both sides to the argument, I'd like to point one thing out by way of the inherent bonuses (tomes) though. The system is/was originally designed to go from 1-20.

18 Str level 1 (Through rolls, or PB.)
+5(Level 4,8,12,16,20) +5 Tome +6 Stat bonus= 34 crazy how that came out to an even number isn't it? I think that's the problem, people aren't really looking at the system as a whole, instead they're looking at it from each standpoint.

On that note, do I have issue with +1 items? Not really no, then again with proper template Stacking you get a Str of 46 with LA+1 at (Level 2) or Level 1 if you do LA buyoff pointbuy. This is the problem with D&D 3.5 as a whole, it really breaks down when you allow any splatbook to be used. Things just melt all over the place. God forbid you have certain splatbooks without their proper errata or changes. (The fact there are 3 different half-ogres is point enough.) That's a major flaw of the system. The biggest issue stemming from +1 items is the Meta game/optimization argument. This is where I'll say, if that's a problem in your group, expect the entire group to play Wizards, and at level 9 they no longer care about anything forever. It's a question of trusting your players, or your DM to not abuse something that's available, like Gate-chains. I'd say rule it on a case by case basis, when you go to start the campaign ask players what they think etc, then say if we allow +1 stat items, you have to roll your stats, there is no PB allowed. You could even be lenient, tell them to roll 6 stats and they can put them anywhere.

With PB allowed? I'd say it has slight balance issues, simply because it allows a boon early-levels, late levels the odd numbered person falls behind. (By a single point) without a real way to make it up.
17 Str (Level 1)
+5 (Levels4,8,12,16,20) +5 (Tome), +5 Item=32 or +6 item =33 they are one point behind the person who started with an 18 str, unless you allow a +7 item, regardless, they will forever and always be a single-stat behind the dude who has an 18 (If you allow a +7 you have to allow +8 or you're purposefully ruling in favor of odd numbers.) basicially it boils down, to allowing players something nice at low-levels, I don't think that's a big issue.

[Zaq]

A +1 Keen Shortsword does nothing(other than a +1 bonus) for a character who takes Improved Critical(Shortsword). A character who does not take said feat gains the benefit of a larger critical range. Is this not an example of a magic item that affects a basic capability of every character, and yet has different effects depending on who holds it?

But it's not the case that there's a more expensive "+1 Really Keen Shortsword" that will help both someone with Improved Crit (Shortsword) and someone without it (in exactly the same way that the +1 Keen Shortsword helps those whom it helps, I hasten to add, as that's a crucial factor in the comparison). That's the key difference between your example and a +1 stat boost vs. a +2 stat boost. There's already a baseline example of stat-boosting items that help everyone equally, and the hypothetical odd-numbered bonus items are proposing a new set of items that help some characters in exactly the same way as the even-numbered bonuses, but that basically don't help some characters at all. That's the difference.

It's not JUST that "this item doesn't help everyone equally." It's that "everyone can get this item-based benefit, but some people have to pay more for it while some people have to pay less." THAT'S the issue. And while that would be bad enough if WotC did it, the fact that WotC didn't do that means that any new odd-numbered stat items you cook up are made only to offer some (but not all!) characters a discount on something that already exists. And when you consider that the topic at hand is one of the more annoying parts of D&D math in the first place (seriously, stat-boosting items are just annoying; I like that 4e did away with them entirely, and I'm okay with Legend limiting them to +2 and that's it. I don't like that you're kinda-sorta expected to be paying for ever-higher numbers without actually getting anything interesting, but you're kinda-sorta not. Ugh) but nonetheless one that the system does expect you to be using and maintaining, well, that's just kinda sloppy.

The game EXPECTS that you're going to be constantly trying to get stat-boosting items, pretty much without exception for your class. I don't like it, but it's a widespread baseline assumption. It's not really optional. (It's KIND of optional, but only technically; you're really deviating from the norm if you don't do something to pop up your stats, at least your primary. And your numbers, whatever numbers you care about, probably won't keep up with system expectations.) I'd actually be more okay with the prospect of the discount bonuses if the need for ever-higher stat boosts weren't so universal. But going from "Bobby, Tommy, Susie, and Jenny each spend 4,000 GP and make their primary tricks one point better" to "Bobby and Susie each spend 4,000 GP and make their primary tricks one point better, while Tommy and Jenny each spend 1,000 GP and make their primary tricks one point better" is a lot harder for me than just "Only Tommy was going to pay to make his primary tricks one point better, and now he pays less for the privilege."

I wouldn't storm away from a game with odd-numbered modifiers. I'd probably point out to the GM that the benefit is disproportionate, and if he or she kept it in place anyway, I'd shrug and start taking advantage of it. Honestly, I don't like odd-numbered stats not mattering in general --4e kinda-sorta did okay in that a lot of cool feats and such have stat prereqs (far more than have feat prereqs, actually), and those stat prereqs were nearly universally odd numbers, so there was a definite benefit in making sure that you had a 15 WIS instead of a 14 WIS, for example, and there are no items or anything that actually boost your stats. And Legend just sidesteps it by making all your stats even and making all your bumps also even; the fact that we start at 10 at all (instead of, I dunno, starting at 0, then only keeping track of modifiers rather than scores) is just there to help folks like me, who have years and years of thinking about it this way. (Kinda like using inches and pounds even though the metric system makes more sense as a whole; it's possible to unlearn inches and pounds, but you're fighting a pretty damned strong habit.)

I don't think the game will crumble if you introduce odd-numbered stat bonuses. I do think that it's something that has to be done after careful consideration (in other words, I respect a GM who adds it specifically to make point-buy easier or specifically to make your natural level-based increases matter at 4 rather than at 8, but not one who does it just because). I think it's a minor failure of the game as a whole that it's an issue at all. I don't think it's actually a great idea, but neither do I think it's even as bad as, say, critical fumbles, just to throw out a common houserule that I hate.

[Talderas]

With PB allowed? I'd say it has slight balance issues, simply because it allows a boon early-levels, late levels the odd numbered person falls behind. (By a single point) without a real way to make it up.

You're exactly right, it has benefits at lower levels while it's fails behind with a -1 modifier at higher levels. Now look at what that benefit or detriment translates into at those levels and then consider that most groups will never enter double digit levels.

A single +1 modifier at high levels doesn't really matter because the values it adds to are so large that 1 is not a significant percentage. and the cost difference between a +5 (25,000) and +6 (36,000) is not that much. The +5 is 70% of the price of the +6. 11,000gp at those levels isn't that much.

Comparatively, the difference between a +1 (1,000) and +2 (4,000) is quite a lot. A +1 modifier at lower levels provides drastically greater benefits providing a much higher percentage of the total output and having an item cost 25% of what it would cost for another character is a significant power boon. Freeing 3,000gp for yourself at low levels is a huge boon no matter who you are.

These items are min-maxer's wet dreams because it minimizes the incremental cost of reaching maximum power then freeing up resources to shore up weaknesses even more.

[dascarletm]

Snip



Let's look at those assumptions shall we?
Assuming we are comparing two players each wanting str, dex and con, and can only point buy 18 points towards those stats. Str being the primary.

Evelyn (E) stats her 3 top stats like this: str 14 dex 14 con 14

Odysseys (O) stats his 3 top stats: str 15 dex 13 con 13

At every level of player building they are willing to spend 1/2 their wealth towards stat increases (using no more than 1/4th on any one item). Let's highlight every 4 levels

Level 1, no stat increasing items, E is strictly better than O in every way.

Level 4:
E puts a point into strength and also buys a +1 item for str. She now has 16 14 14 in her stats at the cost of 100gp.
O puts a point into str and buys two +1 items he now has 16 14 14. He is evenly matched to E, but has spent 1000 more gold than her to attain that.

Level 8:
E puts another point into strength, and can now afford +2 items, so buys one for each stat. She has 18, 16, 16 for the cost of 12000gp.
O puts a point into str again and buys a +1 for that stat along with two +1s for the off stats. He cannot afford +3 stat items due to the 1/4th total rule. He ends up with 18 14 14. Worse than E, but he only spent 3000gp. Alternatively he could have put a point into dex and bought two +2 items and a +3 getting 18, 16, 14. Still worse, but costing 9000gp.

If you look you can see a pattern.

E has a total of +10 in bonuses for 12000gp, and O has either a total of +9 or +8, costing 9000 or 3000. They're all spending an increasing amount of gold to increase stats. E is still coming out ahead bonus wise. It may cost less for O, but he has less power for it.

Ignoring WBL it will cost 19000 for O to be on par with E. Quite a bit more cost wise.

Level 12

E puts yet another point into str. she can buy up to +4 items, so buys two for the off stats, and a +3 for her main. She has 22 18 18 for the cost of 41000gp.

O puts another point into str, and buys two +3s and a +4 he has 22 16 16. Yet again, worse, he pays 34000gp for that

To catch up O needs to spend 66000.

You see how this is going? Even with odd stat boosters, people who put points into odd stats come out behind in gold, or power level.

It is completely equivalent to having a character with a 16 versus a character with a 14. The 14 character can spend gold to have the same bonus as a 16. The same cost per stat increase formula still holds true.

[eggynack]

It's not JUST that "this item doesn't help everyone equally." It's that "everyone can get this item-based benefit, but some people have to pay more for it while some people have to pay less."
But you're leaving out the most important part. It's not just, "Some pay more while some pay less." It's, "Some characters, specifically those characters that invested more into the score in question, pay less, while some, specifically those characters that didn't, pay more." That makes perfect sense to me. Meanwhile, if one character is running a 17 and the other an 18, then the character with the 17 has to pay more, while the character with the 18 has to pay less, or rather, nothing. If you invest this thing, then you get that benefit.

[The Grue]

But it's not the case that there's a more expensive "+1 Really Keen Shortsword" that will help both someone with Improved Crit (Shortsword) and someone without it (in exactly the same way that the +1 Keen Shortsword helps those whom it helps, I hasten to add, as that's a crucial factor in the comparison). That's the key difference between your example and a +1 stat boost vs. a +2 stat boost. There's already a baseline example of stat-boosting items that help everyone equally, and the hypothetical odd-numbered bonus items are proposing a new set of items that help some characters in exactly the same way as the even-numbered bonuses, but that basically don't help some characters at all. That's the difference.

Not at all. In my example, a character lacking the Improved Critical feat pays for a Keen weapon, and gains a larger crit range. A character who took Improved Critical pays nothing because he already has the benefit.

A character with a Strength score of 17 pays however much(I forget what we determined it would be) to gain a +4 ability score modifier. A character with a strength score of 18 pays nothing because he already has a +4 modifier. You seem to be implying that the latter would need to pay for a +2 item to gain the same benefit as the 17 Str with +1, which is not the case at all.

To expand further, to get a +5 ability score bonus the 18 Str character would need a +2 Belt of Chuck Norris Strength, while the character with 17 Str would need to pay extra for a +3 belt.

[Zaq]

In the shortsword example (and in the direct parallel case for the stat boosts), I'm looking at incremental benefits, not end results. The question is not "what does it take to get to a 19-20 crit range?" (Or 17-20, if shortswords already are 19-20. Don't remember, don't care, not important.) The question is "what does it take to double your existing crit range?"

And yeah, at the high end, the greater starting investment gives you a higher ceiling. That's a given. But in the interim, things get weird.

I'm more being Devil's Advocate than actually professing a strong feeling either way. Like I said, I think the fact that it's even an issue is something of a failure, and either way the issue is addressed, something ends up awkward. But it's not going to cause the game to crumble either way.