+1 ability score items

[Invader]

I know this has been discussed before but I can't seem to find any of the threads.

If I wanted to buy a +1 whatever of Dex, how much would it cost and what's the formula to figure it out?

[ZamielVanWeber]

Assuming it goes into the "proper slot" it costs bonus squared X 1000. Or just 1000 in this case. It is in the creating magic items section of the SRD.

[Invader]

Assuming it goes into the "proper slot" it costs bonus squared X 1000. Or just 1000 in this case. It is in the creating magic items section of the SRD.

Ahh now I see it, thank you.
Every once in a while I completely glaze over really easy to find rules lol :smallredface:

[Khedrac]

Actually this one very much falls into the "Ask your DM" category and WotC specifically state that on should not have ability score boot items of odd bonuses - at which point the pricing guidelines in the DMG are off the table.

[Andezzar]

Actually this one very much falls into the "Ask your DM" category and WotC specifically state that on should not have ability score boot items of odd bonuses - at which point the pricing guidelines in the DMG are off the table.Where do they say that?

[Invader]

Actually this one very much falls into the "Ask your DM" category and WotC specifically state that on should not have ability score boot items of odd bonuses - at which point the pricing guidelines in the DMG are off the table.

Can you show where they say that? Personally I don't see what the big deal is and I don't think my DM would really care but it's good to know for reference.

[Killer Angel]

Actually this one very much falls into the "Ask your DM" category and WotC specifically state that on should not have ability score boot items of odd bonuses - at which point the pricing guidelines in the DMG are off the table.

Given that we have all the "Tome of...", I'd say that, at least for inherent bonuses, this is not a problem.

[Rebel7284]

I cannot locate the quote right now, but I recall the logic was that an item that boosts strength, for example, should boost strength for everyone. As ability scores are an abstract concept, it would be difficult to explain why wearing a +1 to str item makes some guys better at combat but not others.

[Flickerdart]

I would still price it at 4000.

If you have 11 STR and buy this item, you get +1 STR mod, same as what a +2 item would give you for 4000.

If you have 10 STR, this item does nothing for you, and you will not buy it.

[Andezzar]

I don't see a problem with odd enhancement bonuses. Unless your world is supposed to have Magic Items-R-Us, most items are made to order anyways. Why shouldn't the creator make them fitting to the customer?

[Deophaun]

I would still price it at 4000.

If you have 11 STR and buy this item, you get +1 STR mod, same as what a +2 item would give you for 4000.

If you have 10 STR, this item does nothing for you, and you will not buy it.
Carrying capacity.
Takes 1 more point of Strength damage to make you helpless.
You qualify for feats and abilities that require 11 Strength (OK, not so much, but 12 to 13...)
Um... Makes one of your stats a prime number, and prime numbers are best numbers.

[eggynack]

I tend to think odd bonus items are a good idea. A big fault with the current ability score system is that odd scores are worth so little extra in comparison to the even scores one below them, and so much less than the even scores one above them. An oft stated fault of this is that odd bonuses provide more to some characters than others, but I don't really see the issue with that. The characters provided more benefit are, after all, the characters with the higher score, so they deserve to derive more benefit.

The underlying mechanics are a bit wonky, but the overall outcome is that every ability score has a reasonable level of benefit over the score below it, which is a thing untrue of the basic system. Consider the example of three characters, who in one important stat have a 16, a 17, and an 18. Starting with a +1 item, the 17 character would gain the only apparent benefit, but in reality the 18 having character would have the exact same modifier as the 17 without having to spend the gold, and as I noted, the 16 deserves to be the worst in this situation. At +2, everyone increases their modifier by one, but the 16 and 17 increase it to the same place despite the initially different scores, which is a benefit to the 16, and the 18 goes one higher. Pushing things to the end, we see the biggest difference. At +6 the 18 gets the biggest bonus, and while the 17 would like to follow along, he is fundamentally unable to, once again reaching parity with the 16.

One core problem is that it's somewhat awkward to find a +1 item and gain no benefit, or to find a +3 and gain minor benefit, just because of some arbitrary decision you made. As a solution, I think that these items should be significantly rarer than their even counterparts, and should generally be found only by custom crafting, or in some stores. It'd be pretty weird to have a bargain bin filled with +1's, and then find no +1's in the wild, but if the lower demand just makes them generally less made/used than the +2's, then there's at least some justification for it.

[Flickerdart]

Unless your world is supposed to have Magic Items-R-Us, most items are made to order anyways.
There are really not that many spellcasters who make items. Most magic items are found in dungeons, made to someone else's order.

[Andezzar]

There are really not that many spellcasters who make items. Most magic items are found in dungeons, made to someone else's order.Still whoever ordered them, is just as likely to have odd ability scores as having even ones. So There is no reason that person would not have ordered an item with an odd bonus.

[ExLibrisMortis]

It's not really possible for the crafter to know the ability scores of his customers. Unless he does some rigorous testing with a well-known poison, or a caged undead with fixed ability damage or whatever. And that just seems slightly too unreal to put in a game. The only time I could see +1 ability items, is when you craft your own using an ancestral relic or something. But even then, I wouldn't houserule to allow it. No need to fix what isn't broken. Having all odd scores with +5 items is still worse than having evens with +6 items, even if it saves you 11.000 gp per item. Just suffer to be forced to use +6 items.

[Urpriest]

If you followed the 3.0->3.5 transition, this was covered multiple times. It's the reason why Bull's Strength isn't random anymore, for example. Odd enhancement bonuses to ability scores are just not part of the design principles for 3.5.

[Deophaun]

It's not really possible for the crafter to know the ability scores of his customers.
It's actually really easy. If, after the first day of crafting, the customer can hit harder/memorize more spells/is more charming/picks locks better/holds his breath longer/is better at animal husbandry, then he had an odd score in whatever you were enchanting. Otherwise, it's another three days and 3,000 gp.

[Afgncaap5]

I don't see a problem with odd enhancement bonuses. Unless your world is supposed to have Magic Items-R-Us, most items are made to order anyways. Why shouldn't the creator make them fitting to the customer?

In my games, my rule for magic items is that magic is a lot more mysterious and less modular than it appears to be to those of us looking into the game from real life. Generally, people have figured out how to make items of the sorts found in the DMG (or at least they've heard about such things), but stuff beyond that is sort of a question mark. Basically, making a +2 item into a +3 item isn't a matter of "trying harder" or adding 50% more newt eye or just spending more gold on Ye Olde Generique Components. It's a matter of figuring out new rules about magic.

Let's say they have a Basic Belt of Giant's Strength (a +4 Strength item) and a Deluxe Belt of Giant's Strength (a +6 item). One definitely puts someone into the next higher "tier" of strongness, and the Deluxe model goes one tier beyond that. So, making a +5 item in this case is a matter of saying "So, how do we make this item cause a person to become slightly stronger than the basic model, but slightly weaker than the deluxe model?" The belt is made of leather and studded with iron, usually, so let's compare the differences in the leather and the ironwork, see if there's a progression midway between those? Or maybe it's the kind of animal that went into it. Maybe the Basic model only uses the hide of the second calf that a cow gives birth to on a Tuesday, and the Deluxe model only uses the hide of the third calf that a cow gives birth to on a Wednesday. Logically the middle option needs to be... a cow who's already had one calf later having twins on the stroke of midnight between a Tuesday and Wednesday, and using leather from both? And what's it mean if the iron from the basic model only comes from iron mines and the iron for the deluxe models always come from fallen asteroids? What's the middle ground there? Mountain-top iron? The rare Ferrous Cloud? It's theoretically possible that, when faced with such questions, a crafting wizard might have to forge some all new path ("Okay, guys, my new belt is a nice middle ground. After years of research, I've determined that it must be made from kangaroo leather and studded with that new steel thing the dwarves keep raving about. Oh, and you have to start making it at a proper convergence of ley lines, but those are easy enough to find.") This new wizard might well be the next Mordenkainen, Bigby or Tesla in terms of magic item creation.

Belts of Giants' Strength are pretty significant, though, and just a +1 item is more reasonable than a +3 item (arguably.) If I had a player wanting to do this, I'd preface it with some serious Spellcraft, Knowledge (Arcana) and Knowledge (History) checks (History to see if some other culture'd done something like it before according to the right legends.) Then I'd ask them to go on some miniature quest to get the different components they'd need, or to study whatever strange, eldritch secrets they need for the next part.

This method almost certainly doesn't mesh with most popular notions about how magic item creation works in D&D, though, so... yeah. Take that for what you will.

[Deophaun]

If I had a player wanting to do this, I'd preface it with some serious Spellcraft, Knowledge (Arcana) and Knowledge (History) checks
While this sounds reasonable at first blush, what you're actually saying is "Only Tier 1s get to do this," As it's the Wizards and the Artificers that have the skill points and lists to make those trivial. Warlock? Nah, Tier 4s need to know their place.

[Afgncaap5]

While this sounds reasonable at first blush, what you're actually saying is "Only Tier 1s get to do this," As it's the Wizards and the Artificers that have the skill points and lists to make those trivial. Warlock? Nah, Tier 4s need to know their place.

Yeah, that's me showing where I deviate from RAW again. Knowledge checks are a bit more available in my campaigns if a player has a backstory that fits it and is willing to make some concessions, and bards and libraries are generally willing to dispense advice on the cheap. (Believe it or not, though, I've only had one player ever play Warlock, and he never wanted to craft things. So... yeah. That's just not come up for me yet. Good note, though.)

[Invader]

I would still price it at 4000.

If you have 11 STR and buy this item, you get +1 STR mod, same as what a +2 item would give you for 4000.

If you have 10 STR, this item does nothing for you, and you will not buy it.

Ahh see but you're exactly wrong with this assumption.

I need a +1 Dex item to meet the prereq for rapid shot. I already have every bonus that 12 Dex gives me, the only benefit im getting the ability to meet the prereq and that's only while im actually wearing the item. I think 1000 g sounds fair for all the more benefit it gives me.

In this instance I don't see why it makes sense for me (or anyone) to pay for more benefit than what we want.

[Andezzar]

If you followed the 3.0->3.5 transition, this was covered multiple times. It's the reason why Bull's Strength isn't random anymore, for example. Odd enhancement bonuses to ability scores are just not part of the design principles for 3.5.If odd bonuses are not part of the design principles of 3.5 why do the tomes and manuals grant odd bonuses? It is a lot less intuitive to give one use, non stacking items odd bonuses than to put them on reusable items.


It's actually really easy. If, after the first day of crafting, the customer can hit harder/memorize more spells/is more charming/picks locks better/holds his breath longer/is better at animal husbandry, then he had an odd score in whatever you were enchanting. Otherwise, it's another three days and 3,000 gp.Exactly.

[Chronos]

I'm of the school of thought that it wouldn't hurt anything to have such items, and as a DM, I personally would allow them... but they're definitely up to each individual DM. For any item whatsoever that's not printed in the books, the first step is always to ask your DM whether it even exists. Once you've established that, then you can start haggling over the price, but the DM is under no obligation to make it exist, or to make its price any particular value. The guidelines for custom magic items are just that, guidelines, and they're in the DMG instead of the PHB for a reason.

[eggynack]

If you followed the 3.0->3.5 transition, this was covered multiple times. It's the reason why Bull's Strength isn't random anymore, for example. Odd enhancement bonuses to ability scores are just not part of the design principles for 3.5.
I guess, but just because it wasn't part of the design principles for 3.5, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been part of the design principles for 3.5. This would be far from the first decision about the nature of the game I would disagree with. To be honest, the non-existence of odd score boosting items are the furthest thing possible from a deal breaker for me. If someone wants their game not to have them, then that's perfectly valid, because they act a bit weird in some situations. However, I also think that wanting them in a game is perfectly valid, because the ability score system as it currently exists also acts weird in some situations, and this would fix some of that. It's self evident that people should do what they want in their own games, at least up to a point, but what I'm saying is that adding these to the game could have a beneficial impact.

[ExLibrisMortis]

It's actually really easy. If, after the first day of crafting, the customer can hit harder/memorize more spells/is more charming/picks locks better/holds his breath longer/is better at animal husbandry, then he had an odd score in whatever you were enchanting. Otherwise, it's another three days and 3,000 gp.
Imagine a world where all the people are lined up, on their 18th birthday, given a +1 belt of magnificence, then tested on six subjects. The only scores given are 'odd' and 'even'.

Okay, it's not what I would put in my world, but it's pretty amusing.

[Deophaun]

Imagine a world where all the people are lined up, on their 18th birthday, given a +1 belt of magnificence, then tested on six subjects. The only scores given are 'odd' and 'even'.

Okay, it's not what I would put in my world, but it's pretty amusing.

Waitress: Well aren't you an odd one.
Creepy Patron: Actually, I'm an odd four--Constitution, Dexterity, Wisdom, and Charisma.

[Urpriest]

If odd bonuses are not part of the design principles of 3.5 why do the tomes and manuals grant odd bonuses? It is a lot less intuitive to give one use, non stacking items odd bonuses than to put them on reusable items.


Why is it less intuitive? As it stands, odd bonuses have a specific role: they come from permanent sources, like level advancement and inherent bonuses, which makes sense because they interact with odd scores, and thus care about your "real" ability scores. By contrast, even bonuses come from temporary effects, and broad bell curves like race and racial paragon. While mechanically they affect your ability scores as well, because they always change your capabilities they can be interpreted as directly changing your ability to do things.

There's a pretty clear fluff distinction, as well as pretty clear design reasons for segregating the two. You can challenge whether it's the best way to set things up, but it's not like it's not clear why it's set up the way it is.

[Invader]

Why is it less intuitive? As it stands, odd bonuses have a specific role: they come from permanent sources, like level advancement and inherent bonuses, which makes sense because they interact with odd scores, and thus care about your "real" ability scores. By contrast, even bonuses come from temporary effects, and broad bell curves like race and racial paragon. While mechanically they affect your ability scores as well, because they always change your capabilities they can be interpreted as directly changing your ability to do things.

There's a pretty clear fluff distinction, as well as pretty clear design reasons for segregating the two. You can challenge whether it's the best way to set things up, but it's not like it's not clear why it's set up the way it is.

Even score increases can also come from inherent bonuses. I already pointed out why it can be beneficial to increase an ability by one without moving to the next bonus and a lot of feats require an odd score as a prereq. I'd say not having a way to temp increase a score by one point but having a reason for wanting to do it isn't intuitive.

The entire reason around not having temp odd numbered increases is based solely on the assumption that you're only ever going to use one to increase your score to an even number otherwise there's no good reason why you shouldnt be able to.

[eggynack]

There's a pretty clear fluff distinction, as well as pretty clear design reasons for segregating the two. You can challenge whether it's the best way to set things up, but it's not like it's not clear why it's set up the way it is.
Yeah, there's definitely justification in either direction. Just as it's weird that naturally having a 13 isn't worth much over naturally having a 12, it's similarly weird that having a +1 item for a 13 does a lot while having it for a 12 does little. Really, the fundamental problem is with the basic system where odds are worth less than evens. They probably should have set it up so that it was not like that, though I'm not sure what the exact implementation of that would be.

[Spore]

I'm all for it but only for non-stacking +1 items (so no +3 and +5), why?

1) It gives some worth to odd attribute values. It does even out the difference between moderate min-maxxers and inexperienced players somwhat.

2) It gives at worst a +1 bonus. This isn't really something to write home about.

3) While +3 and +5 imbalances the calculations WotC has done somewhat a +1 item isn't something that matters hugely in the big picture. I realize that buffing a single stat is benefitting the most imbalanced classes in D&D more than others (SAD Wizards over MAD melee classes for example) but which classes tend to suffer from "odd" abilities the most? Yes, it's MAD ones.

[ericgrau]

Two possibilites:
1. No.

2. 3500 gp.

As said either you're getting almost the same benefit as a +2, or you're spending your gold on something else. That's why it's nearly as good as a +2. Its impact on those with even ability scores is irrelevant because 98% of the time those people would buy something else. I'm not discounting a staff of wish just because the barbarian only uses it as a quarterstaff.

[eggynack]

As said either you're getting almost the same benefit as a +2, or you're spending your gold on something else. That's why it's nearly as good as a +2. Its impact on those with even ability scores is irrelevant because 98% of the time those people would buy something else. I'm not discounting a staff of wish just because the barbarian only uses it as a quarterstaff.
It is nearly as good as a +2 under certain circumstances, but those circumstances are ones in which you already paid for the the ability for the +1 to have the same benefit by increasing your score by one in comparison to the character who picked all evens. It makes sense for such a character to get a discount, because that would be their main benefit over that other character. Thus, I think the basic 1,000 GP pricing is likely the correct one, or at least something significantly lower than 3,500.

[SinsI]

Ahh see but you're exactly wrong with this assumption.

I need a +1 Dex item to meet the prereq for rapid shot. I already have every bonus that 12 Dex gives me, the only benefit im getting the ability to meet the prereq and that's only while im actually wearing the item. I think 1000 g sounds fair for all the more benefit it gives me.

In this instance I don't see why it makes sense for me (or anyone) to pay for more benefit than what we want.

When don't ask for a "+1 Dex item". Ask for an item that gives you the following benefit:
"Allows to qualify for a rapid shot feat even if you don't have the necessary Dexterity requirement. To use this item, you must have minimum Dexterity of 12".
or
"Allows to qualify for prerequisites as if your Dexterity was 1 higher".
I'm sure such an item can be ordered for a 1000 gold.

[georgie_leech]

Yeah, there's definitely justification in either direction. Just as it's weird that naturally having a 13 isn't worth much over naturally having a 12, it's similarly weird that having a +1 item for a 13 does a lot while having it for a 12 does little. Really, the fundamental problem is with the basic system where odds are worth less than evens. They probably should have set it up so that it was not like that, though I'm not sure what the exact implementation of that would be.

That's how it worked in older editions, though YMMV; it was fiddly as all heck.

[Psyren]

Honestly, I don't have a problem with +1 items, nor even with making them cheaper than +2 items. Yes, for some folks its going to provide the same benefit as a +2 item for less, but that benefit translates to getting an extra +1 modifier a couple of levels early at best - that's hardly likely to send any table into a tailspin.

If you require these to be crafted (which you would by default, since they aren't printed anywhere), I would personally see this as an easy way to reward folks who take crafting feats at low levels, when feats are at more of a premium. Most folks start with a 16 or 18 in their primary stat for instance - assuming the crafter grabs Craft Wondrous Item at the earliest opportunity (3rd level), they'll be ready to make some of these at 4th level, when many folks will have gone from 16 or 18 in their primary stat to 17 or 19. Now the crafter can supply two people in the party instead of just one without having to pay more.

[Knaight]

That's how it worked in older editions, though YMMV; it was fiddly as all heck.

It was, but that's hardly the only example of a system that doesn't have odd half scores that don't do much. Really, the 3-18 base scale with 10-11 corresponding to +0 on rolls is just bizarre, and was probably only kept around because of tradition. It makes sense in a system like GURPS, where you have a 3d6 like distribution and a 3d6 roll under mechanic, but going from -4 to +4 by default, with racial bonuses, magic items, leveling, size, etc. bringing it up would work just as well, and simplify everything.

[georgie_leech]

It was, but that's hardly the only example of a system that doesn't have odd half scores that don't do much. Really, the 3-18 base scale with 10-11 corresponding to +0 on rolls is just bizarre, and was probably only kept around because of tradition. It makes sense in a system like GURPS, where you have a 3d6 like distribution and a 3d6 roll under mechanic, but going from -4 to +4 by default, with racial bonuses, magic items, leveling, size, etc. bringing it up would work just as well, and simplify everything.

But... But... 3d6! :smalltongue:

A lot of D&D's oddness comes from trying to shoehorn in old traditions and rules so it seems like ever expanding editions of the same game, but honestly, they'd probably be better off just marketing each as something different. 4E would have gotten a lot less flak if it had been marketed as something stand alone, I think.

[NWA]

My DM estimates such items at 10000+ Gold

[Chronos]

Wait, you mean that he accepts that a +1 stat item could exist, but prices it at more than the cost of a +2 item?


Quoth georgie_leech:

A lot of D&D's oddness comes from trying to shoehorn in old traditions and rules so it seems like ever expanding editions of the same game, but honestly, they'd probably be better off just marketing each as something different.
Which can lead to old and new players making very different assumptions, in some regards. For instance, the third edition character generation rules say that PCs are a cut above ordinary folks, and so roll 4d6 discard one for their stats. Which makes sense to old folks who played second edition, because the implicit comparison is to 3d6, which is presumably what ordinary commoners get. Except, the 3rd edition rules never actually say that, and so people who joined the game in 3rd edition tend to look at the old-timers funny when we talk about normal ability scores being 3d6.

[Knaight]

A lot of D&D's oddness comes from trying to shoehorn in old traditions and rules so it seems like ever expanding editions of the same game, but honestly, they'd probably be better off just marketing each as something different. 4E would have gotten a lot less flak if it had been marketed as something stand alone, I think.
Even 4e has a lot of the D&D legacy left in it, it's obvious where some sources are and what the designers felt they couldn't touch. There's a bit of a mess of a bunch of unspoken constraints, where what they even are is unclear, where there is fairly obviously a better way to do a lot of things that comes at the cost of maybe not feeling like D&D anymore.

[Psyren]

I found it pretty funny that the Minotaur/Maze thing made it to 5e. Like who goes around blowing maze on a CR 4 (or whatever rating the 5e version is) bad guy?