Waiting for an Ability Boost Item before increasing ability score

[Glarnog]

From my limited exposure to the game, it seems magic items are far less common. That the magic mart has finally been closed. That being said it looks like the magic items that boost ability scores are still out there. That those items seem to boost a single ability score to 19. Like a Headband of Intellect would raise a characters intellegence ability score to a 19 regardless if there intellegence score was a 8, 16 or 20. Using that example, if you had started with a 16 in INT, then raised it to 18 at 4th level, and reading the item to mean your new score is 19 regardless of what your score was before the item, would it not make sense to wait until you hopefully find the item that corresponds best with your main ability? And just takes feats until that time?

Thanks
Glarnog

[Cybren]

From my limited exposure to the game, it seems magic items are far less common. That the magic mart has finally been closed. That being said it looks like the magic items that boost ability scores are still out there. That those items seem to boost a single ability score to 19. Like a Headband of Intellect would raise a characters intellegence ability score to a 19 regardless if there intellegence score was a 8, 16 or 20. Using that example, if you had started with a 16 in INT, then raised it to 18 at 4th level, and reading the item to mean your new score is 19 regardless of what your score was before the item, would it not make sense to wait until you hopefully find the item that corresponds best with your main ability? And just takes feats until that time?

Thanks
Glarnog

there's no innate, rules-borne assumption you will get magic items at any schedule or pace nor one that you will get to keep them. Bounded accuracy means that DMs have a lot more leeway in plot points like "all your gear was nabbed better scrounge for something before the battle". On top of that, feats are an optional rule for use in campaigns at the DMs discretion.

[hymer]

I wouldn't count on finding just the magic item I need. A given PC might never come across an ability boost item, let alone the one s/he needs. I'd get my primary stat to 20 the natural way to be sure I'd get it, and wouldn't lose it again later. And then I'd be happy to find something to give me 19 in a secondary stat.

[Vowtz]

If you have a kind and generous DM who will give you the exact item that you want, then yes.

[Glarnog]

That makes sense. Can't be stolen, won't be neagted in Anti Magic. I'd assume most DMs at least for home type games would... actually make sure there are some specfic items for the differnt character classes, but why risk it. Though would be frustrating to get your main ability to 20 only to then find the item. :)

thanks

Glarnog

[DrLemniscate]

Though would be frustrating to get your main ability to 20 only to then find the item. :)


But then you can have fun experimenting with the item!

Make your mount wear it!

Use it as a dirty handkerchief! "Why Glarnog, that sneeze sounded very intelligent."

Put it on that Kobold you are trying to interrogate so he hopefully picks up Common! "I do say, my hygienic habits have been atrocious!"

Of course, you could always give it to someone who could use it better (Maybe a Fighter or Rogue with a spellcasting Archetype who isn't aiming for a natural 20 INT), or sell it.

[ambartanen]

I'd argue you don't even want a magic item for your primary attribute. You want that +5 modifier for all your attacks and save DCs instead of a +4.

Some of those magic items, even if you find them, might have several members of the party wishing to use them. Unlike in previous edition, in 5e I wouldn't expect a wisdom item to go to the cleric or a dexterity item to go to the rogue- those characters should already have those attributes raised as high as possible.

[Glarnog]

Oh... I was thinking if the head band set Int to 19 and then you added 1 to your Int it would be come 20. That once the head band set it to 19 you would add to that. At least now I know what my wiz is going to do at 4th and 8th lvl. :)

[Glarnog]

Dr, I love your ideas.

[BRC]

I'd argue you don't even want a magic item for your primary attribute. You want that +5 modifier for all your attacks and save DCs instead of a +4.

Some of those magic items, even if you find them, might have several members of the party wishing to use them. Unlike in previous edition, in 5e I wouldn't expect a wisdom item to go to the cleric or a dexterity item to go to the rogue- those characters should already have those attributes raised as high as possible.

This.

With Point Buy, it's not hard to end up with a 16 in your primary stat to start with (picking a race with at least +1 to your primary stat is optimization 101), and you'll almost certainly have the opportunity to hit 18 before you start getting those magic items.

I think the idea behind them is that they can shore up a secondary stat in your build, and allow you to do other things with your feats.

[hawklost]

The items that give you a specific stat Set your stat to that if your natural stat is lower

If you have a 13 in Int and get a 19 Band. You are now 19 Int. +1 to Int and you are 19 Int since your natural int is only 14 now.

If you are a 20 Int naturally, you just have a pretty headband.

[Demonic Spoon]

I'd argue you don't even want a magic item for your primary attribute. You want that +5 modifier for all your attacks and save DCs instead of a +4.

Some of those magic items, even if you find them, might have several members of the party wishing to use them. Unlike in previous edition, in 5e I wouldn't expect a wisdom item to go to the cleric or a dexterity item to go to the rogue- those characters should already have those attributes raised as high as possible.

Yup.


That makes sense. Can't be stolen, won't be neagted in Anti Magic. I'd assume most DMs at least for home type games would... actually make sure there are some specfic items for the differnt character classes, but why risk it. Though would be frustrating to get your main ability to 20 only to then find the item. :)


I would do the opposite. If a character specifically built his character around getting a particular magic item to boost his abilities, I'd ensure that such an item never ended up as random loot.

[ambartanen]

I would do the opposite. If a character specifically built his character around getting a particular magic item to boost his abilities, I'd ensure that such an item never ended up as random loot.
But let the character know there's a way to obtain that item if they run a quest. Now the character can get what they want but have to figure out how to convince the other PCs that item is worth risking their lives.

[Rilak]

My thought on this is that 19 for your main stat sort of sucks (especially considering it costs an attunement slot). You will likely hit 18 at level 4, which gives the same bonus. You do want to end up with a 20 in your main stat, and you do not want to be level 12 with a 14 main stat if your DM finds out what you are up to...

The items are just gravy; and considering they require attunement? You may be better off with a Ring of Evasion, Ring of Resistance, Ring of Protection, etc.

Given that you will probably find some stat magic items anyway... If you instead give your 8 INT bard that headband, you suddenly get a great skill monkey for your team.

Give 19 DEX to your Barbarian so he can focus on STR/CON and your Barbarian can avoid more attacks/fireballs (he has advantage on DEX saves but has problems vs. high DC's anyway).
Give the WIS item to some Fighter wishing to improve his saves.
And so on.

[Glarnog]

I'm on board, though I'm not sure how willing a Fighter will be to use one of his 3 attunements for a wis bonus. The other examples seem far more plausable.

[hawklost]

Well, the Fighter could choose to spend one of his Stat increases on the Feat to give him Proficiency in Wisdom saves, that is actually better than the magical item in some ways (and gets him a +1 to the stat).

He does have extra increases over every other class to play with.

[Xetheral]

If characters all had a 20 in their primary attribute, then I think having items that set stats to 19 wouldn't be a problem. But I don't buy that assumption: feats are fun, and a 16/18 in a primary stat isn't going to ruin a character build. Also, even if everyone is hell-bent on getting a 20, they still have to get there, which (short of rolling a 17-18) means spending time below 20.

So, if one assumes instead that most characters in the party have a 16-18 in their primary stat, then the items are indeed problematic. One of two things will happen:

1) Characters do as the OP suggests, and deliberately avoid boosting their primary stat. This is extremely immersion-breaking for me (even if actually makes some sense IC if the characters know how the items work), and I'd frown upon it strongly.

2) Items go to the party member for whom the item will help the most. Sadly, this often *won't* be the character who has that stat primary, as the item would provide only a +0 or a +1. Instead, a character with that stat as an important secondary attribute is likely to get between +2 and +3, and a smart party will give the item to them. (Yes, in some cases a +1 to a primary is better than +2 to a secondary, so this won't always happen, but it will be frequent.) This is also extremely immersion-breaking, as now the title of strongest/fastest/smartest character switches due to an item.

The second problem always bugged me in BGII: Throne of Bhaal. The big melee fighter with the 18/00 strength was often the *weakest* member of the party, because it made more sense to give the strength-boosting items to the weaklings.

Consider in OotS: If Roy's Belt of Giant Strength +6 instead set his strength to 20, and we assume Roy has an 18 from level boosts, the belt would arguably do more good in Durkon's or Belkar's hands, or even Elan's (depending on if punning adds charisma to strength or replaces it).

[Demonic Spoon]

why is that immersion-breaking?

It's a magic item, not a stat boost.

[Xetheral]

why is that immersion-breaking?

It's a magic item, not a stat boost.

Because it removes one character's shtick (i.e. being the strongest/fastest/smartest) simply because the game was written with fixed-score attribute boosts rather than a bonus. In other words, the player of the character who already has a high stat knows that because of the choice of game system, the character's role in the party has shifted.

Consider: you and a co-worker were both vying for a promotion for a job that requires raw intelligence. You have an IQ of 110, and the co-workers has an IQ of 90. If the employer has a magic item that makes someone smarter by boosting the wearer's IQ to 120, they're better off promoting the other guy and giving him the item. It makes perfectly good sense for the company--they now have two smart employees--but it's no fun for you.

[ambartanen]

That's a very strange example.

Anyway, if you want to be "the strong one", you should have 20 strength and then the item doesn't bother you. If you don't have 20 strength, you really aren't all that strong by adventurer standards.

[Demonic Spoon]

Because it removes one character's shtick (i.e. being the strongest/fastest/smartest) simply because the game was written with fixed-score attribute boosts rather than a bonus. In other words, the player of the character who already has a high stat knows that because of the choice of game system, the character's role in the party has shifted.

Consider: you and a co-worker were both vying for a promotion for a job that requires raw intelligence. You have an IQ of 110, and the co-workers has an IQ of 90. If the employer has a magic item that makes someone smarter by boosting the wearer's IQ to 120, they're better off promoting the other guy and giving him the item. It makes perfectly good sense for the company--they now have two smart employees--but it's no fun for you.


-The character does not know that the character's role has shifted because of the game system, the character knows that it has shifted because of a magical item. Magic items that change things exist in the game world.

-If you want to argue that it isn't fun, that's different. However, these items will presumably be rareish and parties won't have globs of them. There are other magic items, you know.

Sure, the wizard may have 19 strength, but that doesn't give him Athletics proficiency, weapon proficiency, Extra Attacks, or anything else that actually makes the fighter's strength worth having. "Dump stats" don't typically define the role of a character like primary stats do.

[pwykersotz]

Because it removes one character's shtick (i.e. being the strongest/fastest/smartest) simply because the game was written with fixed-score attribute boosts rather than a bonus. In other words, the player of the character who already has a high stat knows that because of the choice of game system, the character's role in the party has shifted.

Consider: you and a co-worker were both vying for a promotion for a job that requires raw intelligence. You have an IQ of 110, and the co-workers has an IQ of 90. If the employer has a magic item that makes someone smarter by boosting the wearer's IQ to 120, they're better off promoting the other guy and giving him the item. It makes perfectly good sense for the company--they now have two smart employees--but it's no fun for you.

But your example assumes that both people vying for the gauntlets of ogre strength are martial types, otherwise your co-worker wouldn't be up for that particular promotion. So yeah, if you have a fighter and a barbarian and the fighter has 17 strength and the barbarian has 15, you net more damage overall by giving it to the barbarian. Maybe not fun for the fighter, but at least both can use it. But if you have a fighter and a wizard, give the gloves to the fighter. It empowers their shtick far more. All that extra strength for the wizard helps the party very little compared to a more accurate and deadly fighter.

[Kurald Galain]

With Point Buy, it's not hard to end up with a 16 in your primary stat to start with (picking a race with at least +1 to your primary stat is optimization 101), and you'll almost certainly have the opportunity to hit 18 before you start getting those magic items.
Indeed.

With point buy, you're guaranteed to start with a 16 in your primary (meaning if you want an 18, you'll have it at level four); with rolling for stats, you have above 50% odds to start with an 18 outright. That means that an item setting your primary to 19 is basically worthless to you.

If you can pick your treasure, you'll probably want an item of 19 constitution. If you get random treasure and have to divide it among party members, it strikes me as obvious to give (e.g.) an 19-dex item to the party member with the lowest dex, since he benefits most.

[Beige]

that depends - don't forget you can attune at most three magic items, so sure you can use an item to get your stat nearly max, but its something you can do without sparkly toys and eats a slot you only get 3 of (as opposed to 5/8 stat slots)

[Xetheral]

If you want to be "the strong one", you should have 20 strength and then the item doesn't bother you. If you don't have 20 strength, you really aren't all that strong by adventurer standards.

Depending on how appealing players find feats, I'm not sure this will be true before mid- (or possibly even high-) levels. It also will depend on how MAD characters find themselves as a result of multiclassing. But yes, if everyone has their primary attribute at 20, then my objection to fixed-score magic items is irrelevant.


-The character does not know that the character's role has shifted because of the game system, the character knows that it has shifted because of a magical item. Magic items that change things exist in the game world.

True. But there are two main ways to model a numeric attribute-enhancing item: have it provide a bonus, and have it set the attribute to a specific number. The former model doesn't result in a magic item causing party roles to shift, while the latter model does. Because the choice of model plainly determines the outcome, I find that immersion-breaking.


-If you want to argue that it isn't fun, that's different.

Good point. I think you're right that my objection goes deeper than just the immersion-breaking aspect.


Sure, the wizard may have 19 strength, but that doesn't give him Athletics proficiency, weapon proficiency, Extra Attacks, or anything else that actually makes the fighter's strength worth having. "Dump stats" don't typically define the role of a character like primary stats do.

True: in some cases the change in party role would mechanically be limited to straight attribute checks. Although, particularly in the case of the mental stats, attribute scores often inform RP, which matters a lot to party role.


But your example assumes that both people vying for the gauntlets of ogre strength are martial types, otherwise your co-worker wouldn't be up for that particular promotion. So yeah, if you have a fighter and a barbarian and the fighter has 17 strength and the barbarian has 15, you net more damage overall by giving it to the barbarian. Maybe not fun for the fighter, but at least both can use it. But if you have a fighter and a wizard, give the gloves to the fighter. It empowers their shtick far more. All that extra strength for the wizard helps the party very little compared to a more accurate and deadly fighter.

In the case of dump stats, certainly there is little advantage to giving an item to a low-attribute character. I'm thinking more of the case where a character has a low primary or secondary (either due to choice, unusual build, or MAD). A low-charisma paladin is viable, even if it isn't optimal, but would get a big boost from a charisma boosting item compared to the incremental bonus from giving it to a 16 charisma Bard.

[Demonic Spoon]

True. But there are two main ways to model a numeric attribute-enhancing item: have it provide a bonus, and have it set the attribute to a specific number. The former model doesn't result in a magic item causing party roles to shift, while the latter model does. Because the choice of model plainly determines the outcome, I find that immersion-breaking.


This honestly sounds like "I'm not used to it, therefore it is immersion breaking"


True: in some cases the change in party role would mechanically be limited to straight attribute checks. Although, particularly in the case of the mental stats, attribute scores often inform RP, which matters a lot to party role.


I don't think it affects party role that much since character abilities are mostly derived from class, with attributes modifying those. It does affect RP a lot but...hey, they're magic items. They give you fancy new capabilities instead of just giving you bigger numbers in combat. If you don't want your players to have that capability, then don't give it to them. I vastly prefer magic items that have cool effects and can affect RP than something that just makes someone who is already good at X marginally better at X.


In the case of dump stats, certainly there is little advantage to giving an item to a low-attribute character. I'm thinking more of the case where a character has a low primary or secondary (either due to choice, unusual build, or MAD). A low-charisma paladin is viable, even if it isn't optimal, but would get a big boost from a charisma boosting item compared to the incremental bonus from giving it to a 16 charisma Bard.


So? It's powerful on certain character builds. Is that a problem?

[ambartanen]

Depending on how appealing players find feats, I'm not sure this will be true before mid- (or possibly even high-) levels. It also will depend on how MAD characters find themselves as a result of multiclassing. But yes, if everyone has their primary attribute at 20, then my objection to fixed-score magic items is irrelevant.

Well, if you are already a MAD character then you aren't trying to really shine in one area anyway. Besides MAD characters are the ones most likely to need these kinds of magic items. Other than the constitution item- I think everyone with the possible exception of high-level barbarians will want that one.

As for feats, you have a fair point. Some characters will choose them over increasing their primary stat but then, I think, it would be a mistake to give them the magic item. You are effectively encouraging all players to pick up feats since their primary stat will be boosted by convenient magic anyhow.


True. But there are two main ways to model a numeric attribute-enhancing item: have it provide a bonus, and have it set the attribute to a specific number. The former model doesn't result in a magic item causing party roles to shift, while the latter model does. Because the choice of model plainly determines the outcome, I find that immersion-breaking.

On the positive side, items now correspond to their names. "Belt of giant strength" makes you as strong as a giant rather than having some seemingly arbitrary effect- the wizard used to become as strong as a burly farmer while the barbarian who was already stronger than a giant... well, not even sure what to compare him to at that point.

[BRC]

True. But there are two main ways to model a numeric attribute-enhancing item: have it provide a bonus, and have it set the attribute to a specific number. The former model doesn't result in a magic item causing party roles to shift, while the latter model does. Because the choice of model plainly determines the outcome, I find that immersion-breaking.


There's a couple things to consider.

First of all, most classes have a way to deal damage based on their primary stat. Giving a Strength Boost item to a wizard only makes sense if the wizard is hitting things in melee for some reason, instead of spending actions casting spells.
So, Party roles are not going to shift, barring some very extreme circumstances.

These items give you a +4, you can start the game with a +3. At most, the person with the item will have an extra +1 compared to the person who put points into that stat.

The one exception I can think of might be MAD classes like Bards, Rangers, and Paladins. A Bard who has prioritized his casting stat could get an item and find himself at just as good dex as the rogue or dex-fighter. But even then it's not going to change the party roles.

The other thing is Attunements. You only get three of them.

So, the Bard may have some gloves that give them just as much Dex as the rogue. Meanwhile, the Rogue is wearing an amulet that lets them turn invisible. There is a considerable opportunity cost to picking up one of these items.

[Xetheral]

This honestly sounds like "I'm not used to it, therefore it is immersion breaking"

Different tastes in immersion perhaps? Or maybe because I'm still deciding whether to convert my game from 3.5 to 5e, maybe I'm putting too much weight on choice-of-model concerns? On the other hand, as I mentioned above, I found the same problem immersion breaking in BGII every time I looked at my characters' stats and the big bad melee guy was the weakest since he needed strength-boosting items the least.


So? It's powerful on certain character builds. Is that a problem?

Let me try expanding my example. A party has a boorish, Fighter 2/Paladin 6 who dumped charisma, and a sophisticated College of Valor Bard 8 with a 16 charisma and lots of social skills. If the party gets their hands on an item that sets Charisma to 19, the item would help the party most in the hands of the Paladin. Sure, the Bard is still the one making the social skill checks, but you have the incongruity of the Paladin now being the highest-charisma member of the party, contrary to both character concepts. If instead the item had provided a bonus to charisma, it would go to the Bard and there wouldn't be an incongruity in the first place.

[Sidmen]

Let me try expanding my example. A party has a boorish, Fighter 2/Paladin 6 who dumped charisma, and a sophisticated College of Valor Bard 8 with a 16 charisma and lots of social skills. If the party gets their hands on an item that sets Charisma to 19, the item would help the party most in the hands of the Paladin. Sure, the Bard is still the one making the social skill checks, but you have the incongruity of the Paladin now being the highest-charisma member of the party, contrary to both character concepts. If instead the item had provided a bonus to charisma, it would go to the Bard and there wouldn't be an incongruity in the first place.
Think about it this way: you find a scarf that you notice makes you more attractive and personable - as personable as a well-trained courtesan. Now, you can either give it to the Bard, who is already chatting up the local ladies and nobility, or you can give it to the socially awkward chap with the broadsword. Whom would you give it to? Sure, for the Bard it's a scarf of Charisma +3 and for the Paladin it's a scarf of Charisma +9, but does that matter overmuch?

Personally, I could use either setup (flat bonuses or fixed rating), but my first experience with D&D (through the computer game Baldur's Gate) had magic items that just changed your ability scores, so 3.5e and 4e have always been a bit weird to me.

[Demonic Spoon]

Different tastes in immersion perhaps? Or maybe because I'm still deciding whether to convert my game from 3.5 to 5e, maybe I'm putting too much weight on choice-of-model concerns? On the other hand, as I mentioned above, I found the same problem immersion breaking in BGII every time I looked at my characters' stats and the big bad melee guy was the weakest since he needed strength-boosting items the least.


I'm pretty sure 18/00 is actually the highest strength score in BG2, though I don't know 2e that well.

Anyway, so you have a big bad melee guy, who presumably has many levels in fighter...why are you reducing his skill in melee to his Strength attribute? Is the best warrior always the one who can benchpress the most? The warrior not being the strongest person in the party seems to be borne mostly of RPG stereotypes and not out of any sense of immersion.


Let me try expanding my example. A party has a boorish, Fighter 2/Paladin 6 who dumped charisma, and a sophisticated College of Valor Bard 8 with a 16 charisma and lots of social skills. If the party gets their hands on an item that sets Charisma to 19, the item would help the party most in the hands of the Paladin. Sure, the Bard is still the one making the social skill checks, but you have the incongruity of the Paladin now being the highest-charisma member of the party, contrary to both character concepts. If instead the item had provided a bonus to charisma, it would go to the Bard and there wouldn't be an incongruity in the first place.

I don't see how that introduces incongruity. There's no disconnect. It's a magic item that does stuff. It makes no less sense than a magic item that lets you fly.

You're correct in that attribute setting items are different in that they alter a person's fundamental characteristics, but I think that's what makes them interesting. In 3.5e, attribute boosting items were boring. They were a mandatory yet uninspired way that you made someone who was great at something slightly greater. There's nothing new added to the game as a result of their existence other than oh, my numbers got bigger. I think it's perfectly fitting with 5e's design philosophy that powerful magic items (and taking someone from 10 CHA to 19 is certainly powerful) have a powerful effect. And yet, because they're less useful on characters who rely most on the stat being boosted, they don't break bounded accuracy.

[EvilAnagram]

I think epic level items should be able to break bounded accuracy. Hel, even Thor needed his +2 belt and gauntlet.

[Cambrian]

In 3.5e, attribute boosting items were boring. They were a mandatory yet uninspired way that you made someone who was great at something slightly greater. There's nothing new added to the game as a result of their existence other than oh, my numbers got bigger. I think it's perfectly fitting with 5e's design philosophy that powerful magic items (and taking someone from 10 CHA to 19 is certainly powerful) have a powerful effect. And yet, because they're less useful on characters who rely most on the stat being boosted, they don't break bounded accuracy.Worthy of repeating. 4th ed is known for it's MMO feel, but really both it and 3rd handled magic items in a very similar fashion to an MMO.

It's too bad too because that sort of number stacking doesn't make for any interesting stories. A +2 sword is vendor loot when they come across one that's +3.

Getting even a numerically unimpressive weapon with a name (or even a complete backstory) and some unique elements is infinitely more interesting; Tolkien didn't make sting just a sharp and accurate blade, it actually glows when goblins are near.

I suggest people look through this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_magical_weapons#Irish_mythology) to get some inspiration. It's fitting too because those quirky elements like "said to make a circle like an arc of rainbow when swung", " inflict[s] wounds from which none could recover", or "When drawn, it blazed with fire; if drawn by a worthy man, the fire would help him in his cause, but its fire would burn the man who drew it for an unworthy purpose."

Players will remember and treasure items that are more than slightly bigger numbers.

[Rilak]

As for feats, you have a fair point. Some characters will choose them over increasing their primary stat but then, I think, it would be a mistake to give them the magic item. You are effectively encouraging all players to pick up feats since their primary stat will be boosted by convenient magic anyhow.

Feats are an optional rule anyway. If you reach the point where the players have a few stat-boosting items they don't really need, someone will suicide and create a new 8 CON XXXXX with a ton of useful feats.

If you do not play with feats, the stat boosting items become less of a problem the higher level you are.

[MeeposFire]

I'm pretty sure 18/00 is actually the highest strength score in BG2, though I don't know 2e that well.

Anyway, so you have a big bad melee guy, who presumably has many levels in fighter...why are you reducing his skill in melee to his Strength attribute? Is the best warrior always the one who can benchpress the most? The warrior not being the strongest person in the party seems to be borne mostly of RPG stereotypes and not out of any sense of immersion.


I don't see how that introduces incongruity. There's no disconnect. It's a magic item that does stuff. It makes no less sense than a magic item that lets you fly.

You're correct in that attribute setting items are different in that they alter a person's fundamental characteristics, but I think that's what makes them interesting. In 3.5e, attribute boosting items were boring. They were a mandatory yet uninspired way that you made someone who was great at something slightly greater. There's nothing new added to the game as a result of their existence other than oh, my numbers got bigger. I think it's perfectly fitting with 5e's design philosophy that powerful magic items (and taking someone from 10 CHA to 19 is certainly powerful) have a powerful effect. And yet, because they're less useful on characters who rely most on the stat being boosted, they don't break bounded accuracy.

19 is the highest str assuming you play a half orc. You could have a 20 if you found a tome of str in BG1. For most other characters it is 18/00 pre tome (17 for halflings).

As for str items causing problems I never saw it that way. Since I knew it was an item it just felt like a powerful magic item. Gauntlets of ogre power and belts of giant str actually feel like their namesakes better when they actually grant you ogre and giant strength rather than a small increase. As for fighters I actually like the fact that you don't need to make all fighters big dumb brutes to be awesome in 2e. I actually preferred making them smart in PnP due to the bonus proficiencies that you get. Those were often more helpful than all but the highest of strength scores (18+). In addition as a player for PnP and in games like BG2 I found con and dex to be even more helpful for a good potion of the game (until the end game where high str is needed to keep your damage up but by then you really should have a str boosting item of some sort).

[Sartharina]

I think epic level items should be able to break bounded accuracy. Hel, even Thor needed his +2 belt and gauntlet.... I see what you did there.

There ARE epic-level items that break bounded accuracy - there's an "Artifact" level Belt of Storm Giant's Strength that sets your strength to 29. There may be other items that do the same.

[Snails]

Let me try expanding my example. A party has a boorish, Fighter 2/Paladin 6 who dumped charisma, and a sophisticated College of Valor Bard 8 with a 16 charisma and lots of social skills. If the party gets their hands on an item that sets Charisma to 19, the item would help the party most in the hands of the Paladin. Sure, the Bard is still the one making the social skill checks, but you have the incongruity of the Paladin now being the highest-charisma member of the party, contrary to both character concepts. If instead the item had provided a bonus to charisma, it would go to the Bard and there wouldn't be an incongruity in the first place.

Both possible choices are "incongruities". The point of powerful magical items is they break every day logic with a new kind of logic of their own. The "new kind of logic" should make some kind of sense, but it does not have to fit neatly into your favorite pigeon holes.

There is no logical basis for claiming "this makes you stronger" is somehow better than "this makes you as strong as a powerful bull". There is no logical basis for claiming "this makes you more agile" is somehow better than "this makes you as agile as a leopard".

IMNSHO the only reason we are even having this discussion is the designers were (apparently) clever enough to name 19 as the stat level. That is both tempting and annoying to optimizers. If the designers were a little more gun shy, we would be talking about Gauntlets of Dex 17, which quite obviously would be someone's secondary or tertiary stat, right? That would be a no brainer.

I say that the fact of the discussion here demonstrates the designers' choice is interesting enough to be very defensible.

[Xetheral]

Both possible choices are "incongruities".

I disagree. If the magic item instead provided a numerical bonus to charisma, the item would be given to the Bard instead. The most-charismatic member of the party remains the Bard and the Paladin remains the boor he was designed to be. Everyone's shtick's are intact and there is no incongruity at all.


IMNSHO the only reason we are even having this discussion is the designers were (apparently) clever enough to name 19 as the stat level. That is both tempting and annoying to optimizers. If the designers were a little more gun shy, we would be talking about Gauntlets of Dex 17, which quite obviously would be someone's secondary or tertiary stat, right? That would be a no brainer.

I say that the fact of the discussion here demonstrates the designers' choice is interesting enough to be very defensible.

Good point: a lot of the issues I've raised disappear if items set stats to 17 instead of 19. Since I disagree with most posters and think these items are indeed problematic, if I move my group to 5e I might adopt that houserule as a solution.

[Snails]

I disagree. If the magic item instead provided a numerical bonus to charisma, the item would be given to the Bard instead. The most-charismatic member of the party remains the Bard and the Paladin remains the boor he was designed to be. Everyone's shtick's are intact and there is no incongruity at all.

Realistically speaking, the Bard player will have the opportunity to push his Cha to 20 by level 8, before a Stat 19 item is likely to enter the campaign. Thus the Bard will have the stronger Cha. Furthermore, the Bard picked skills to appropriate to take advantage of his Cha. So the actually gap in making tests will be +4 or greater (+1 for the Cha diff, plus a +3 or higher proficiency bonus). If the party actually cares, the Bard will always make the test. Otherwise it is just roleplaying for fun.

Whether the dumpstat Cha paladin rising to some measure of eloquence is a problem is an unanswerable question. It is the nature of powerful magical items that they can effectively rewrite the PC. That was particularly true in old school D&D, where the items that fell into your lap might define your PC more than your stats or class/career choice. If this bothers you, then, yes, sticking to tamer, more incremental magic items is the way to go.

[Demonic Spoon]

I disagree. If the magic item instead provided a numerical bonus to charisma, the item would be given to the Bard instead. The most-charismatic member of the party remains the Bard and the Paladin remains the boor he was designed to be. Everyone's shtick's are intact and there is no incongruity at all.


It's only not an incongruity if it doesn't change anything about how the characters are played, at which point the item ceases to be interesting and meaningful and instead becomes a boring +1 to some numbers. Why even bother having magic items that change your attributes if all characters are supposed to act as if they had their original attributes anyway?