Gauntlets of Ogre power

[dread05]

Just a quick question, if i equip the gauntlets and my str becomes 19, can I add str through a feat or ASI later? Or is it fixed 19 no matter what. thanks

[Flashy]

The value is set to 19, and cannot be increased. If you would otherwise have a strength of 20 and attune to Gauntlets of Ogre Power you would have a strength of 19.

[AvatarVecna]

Just a quick question, if i equip the gauntlets and my str becomes 19, can I add str through a feat or ASI later? Or is it fixed 19 no matter what. thanks

When you're wearing the Gauntlets, your Str is 19, regardless of whatever Str boosters you have, because those other things are increasing your existing Str under the normal rules, where the Gauntlets are changing how Str is calculated.

For future reference, questions like this might be best posed to the RAW Q&A thread stickied at the top of the page; doing it this way isn't doing it wrong, but it creates a new thread for a purpose another thread serves, that's all.

[hymer]

The value is set to 19, and cannot be increased. If you would otherwise have a strength of 20 and attune to Gauntlets of Ogre Power you would have a strength of 19.

Actually, if you have strength 19+, the gauntlets have no effect. They only set your strength to 19 if it is less than 19.

[Bellberith]

Actually, if you have strength 19+, the gauntlets have no effect. They only set your strength to 19 if it is less than 19.

This.

And on a side note, does anyone else here think that these types of items are out of place in 5e? Especially the more powerful ones like Belt of Giant's strength. 21-29 strength is alot. If you were to go on the extreme and say 29.... That is the equivalent of +4 to attack and damage rolls even if you had a 20 in the stat previously. If you had a 16 strength, that is like equipping a +6 weapon (with the added effect of increase str saves / checks / skills).

On top of that, this item makes many strength builds less powerful in my eyes because a character can pump dex and dump str with little to no consequence already. now add in even the small possibility of getting an item like this and instantly they have a strength higher than almost anything in the game. Even the weakest ones are strong like this, but to a lesser extent. Belt of Hill Giant's strength is 21 and Gauntlets of Ogre power being 19 are both huge bonuses to someone who dumped strength. Enough to make a strength build while being a full dex character.

Edit: Just thought i'd add a little thought to an otherwise bland 1 question thread =P

[Flashy]

Actually, if you have strength 19+, the gauntlets have no effect. They only set your strength to 19 if it is less than 19.

Wow, I just CLEARLY don't know what I'm talking about today. My bad.

[RickAllison]

Wow, I just CLEARLY don't know what I'm talking about today. My bad.

Easy mistake. Just last night, a few of my friends were discussing "Gauntlets of Ogre Weakness". A cursed item that looks identical to the eponymous gauntlets, but reduces the user to Strength 19 (or maybe lower) unless their statistic was lower. They figured it would be a nasty surprise for an over-eager Strength-user, but a potentially useful item to use on an enemy.

[Shaofoo]

This.

And on a side note, does anyone else here think that these types of items are out of place in 5e? Especially the more powerful ones like Belt of Giant's strength. 21-29 strength is alot. If you were to go on the extreme and say 29.... That is the equivalent of +4 to attack and damage rolls even if you had a 20 in the stat previously. If you had a 16 strength, that is like equipping a +6 weapon (with the added effect of increase str saves / checks / skills).

On top of that, this item makes many strength builds less powerful in my eyes because a character can pump dex and dump str with little to no consequence already. now add in even the small possibility of getting an item like this and instantly they have a strength higher than almost anything in the game. Even the weakest ones are strong like this, but to a lesser extent. Belt of Hill Giant's strength is 21 and Gauntlets of Ogre power being 19 are both huge bonuses to someone who dumped strength. Enough to make a strength build while being a full dex character.

Edit: Just thought i'd add a little thought to an otherwise bland 1 question thread =P

It would be a problem if the game game the players anyway to actually get the gauntlet or the Belts. But since all magic items are 100% DM controlled and players conversely have no agency how to get magic items your analysis is erroneous because you are talking about the perspective of the player and not the DM. Making a build around magic items is always a horrible proposition and one you should never ever consider in any serious manner.

Basically yes it is out of place but that is why it is in the DMG for the DM to use so you can feel free that your broad analysis can be all rendered moot by the DM using the authority that he always had. If you are somehow guaranteed the belt in some way then go crazy but that is the DM giving you permission, not the game.

[JackPhoenix]

Easy mistake. Just last night, a few of my friends were discussing "Gauntlets of Ogre Weakness". A cursed item that looks identical to the eponymous gauntlets, but reduces the user to Strength 19 (or maybe lower) unless their statistic was lower. They figured it would be a nasty surprise for an over-eager Strength-user, but a potentially useful item to use on an enemy.

Nice! Though I recommend to name it "Gauntlets of kobold weakness", and most people don't have Str 20, so the gauntlets wouldn't do nothing with 19 (someone with str 20 would have no reason to use Gauntlets of ogre power anyway)

[Flashy]

And on a side note, does anyone else here think that these types of items are out of place in 5e? Especially the more powerful ones like Belt of Giant's strength. 21-29 strength is alot. If you were to go on the extreme and say 29.... That is the equivalent of +4 to attack and damage rolls even if you had a 20 in the stat previously. If you had a 16 strength, that is like equipping a +6 weapon (with the added effect of increase str saves / checks / skills).

Yeah, both of the campaigns in my gaming group that are reasonably high magic seem to give out occasional +2 Attribute items (usually with downsides) rather than these. It seems to work fine, and you don't get ludicrous power jumps for people who haven't already put the ASIs into the appropriate attribute.

[Talamare]

This.

And on a side note, does anyone else here think that these types of items are out of place in 5e? Especially the more powerful ones like Belt of Giant's strength. 21-29 strength is alot. If you were to go on the extreme and say 29.... That is the equivalent of +4 to attack and damage rolls even if you had a 20 in the stat previously. If you had a 16 strength, that is like equipping a +6 weapon (with the added effect of increase str saves / checks / skills).

On top of that, this item makes many strength builds less powerful in my eyes because a character can pump dex and dump str with little to no consequence already. now add in even the small possibility of getting an item like this and instantly they have a strength higher than almost anything in the game. Even the weakest ones are strong like this, but to a lesser extent. Belt of Hill Giant's strength is 21 and Gauntlets of Ogre power being 19 are both huge bonuses to someone who dumped strength. Enough to make a strength build while being a full dex character.

Edit: Just thought i'd add a little thought to an otherwise bland 1 question thread =P

This item and the other SET STAT TO X items should never have been created. Its a spit on the face (it might have been okay, if they only went upto like 14~16 max)
I treat them as +X increase instead.

[dread05]

they were a good way to save my terrible rolls :P

[Addaran]

It would be a problem if the game game the players anyway to actually get the gauntlet or the Belts. But since all magic items are 100% DM controlled and players conversely have no agency how to get magic items your analysis is erroneous because you are talking about the perspective of the player and not the DM. Making a build around magic items is always a horrible proposition and one you should never ever consider in any serious manner.


Unless you're in AL. If the player know in wich adventure he can find one, he can go for that campaign. Then the DM actually have to notice something is weird with the character and change the default treasure.



I aggree that those items shouldn't exist. Particularily, it penalize those who used ASI. Two fighter with the exact same build that start with 16 str. One use his next ASI to boost str, the other get a feat. If they find the gauntlet of 19 str, the feat-fighter becomes strickly better then the other one.

[dread05]

Unless you're in AL. If the player know in wich adventure he can find one, he can go for that campaign. Then the DM actually have to notice something is weird with the character and change the default treasure.



I aggree that those items shouldn't exist. Particularily, it penalize those who used ASI. Two fighter with the exact same build that start with 16 str. One use his next ASI to boost str, the other get a feat. If they find the gauntlet of 19 str, the feat-fighter becomes strickly better then the other one.


Well not really, in the long run the fighter that boosted his Str with ASI, will be able to attune himself to 1 more item that the other.

[Ruslan]

This item and the other SET STAT TO X items should never have been created. Its a spit on the face (it might have been okay, if they only went upto like 14~16 max)
I treat them as +X increase instead.
I treat all the "set stat to 19" items as "+4, to a maximum of 19".

[Addaran]

Well not really, in the long run the fighter that boosted his Str with ASI, will be able to attune himself to 1 more item that the other.

That's assuming the party found at least 13 good items (for a team of 4). As long as all the team isn't capped, there wouldn't be extra magic items laying around.

[Ruslan]

And on a side note, does anyone else here think that these types of items are out of place in 5e? Especially the more powerful ones like Belt of Giant's strength. 21-29 strength is alot. If you were to go on the extreme and say 29.... That is the equivalent of +4 to attack and damage rolls even if you had a 20 in the stat previously. If you had a 16 strength, that is like equipping a +6 weapon (with the added effect of increase str saves / checks / skills).

The Belt of Giant Strength is not for a player. It's for the DM. It's an emergency tool for the DM to "fix" melee in case it becomes overshadowed by casters. Melee is not overshadowed by casters? DM does not insert Belt of Giant Strength into his game.

[Spacehamster]

This.

And on a side note, does anyone else here think that these types of items are out of place in 5e? Especially the more powerful ones like Belt of Giant's strength. 21-29 strength is alot. If you were to go on the extreme and say 29.... That is the equivalent of +4 to attack and damage rolls even if you had a 20 in the stat previously. If you had a 16 strength, that is like equipping a +6 weapon (with the added effect of increase str saves / checks / skills).

On top of that, this item makes many strength builds less powerful in my eyes because a character can pump dex and dump str with little to no consequence already. now add in even the small possibility of getting an item like this and instantly they have a strength higher than almost anything in the game. Even the weakest ones are strong like this, but to a lesser extent. Belt of Hill Giant's strength is 21 and Gauntlets of Ogre power being 19 are both huge bonuses to someone who dumped strength. Enough to make a strength build while being a full dex character.

Edit: Just thought i'd add a little thought to an otherwise bland 1 question thread =P

Well the higher end belts should only come into play at later levels(maybe 14-20) where full casters change the fabric of the cosmos, hitting more often for couple more damage is nice but not earth shattering imo. :)

[coredump]

Just a quick question, if i equip the gauntlets and my str becomes 19, can I add str through a feat or ASI later? Or is it fixed 19 no matter what. thanks

Just to completely flesh this out...

You have Str of 16, and put on the Gauntlets, you now have Str 19

Level 4 you add +2 to your Str. Your 'natural' strength is now 18.... you have Str 19 thanks to the gauntlets.

Level 8, another +2 to Str. You know have a 'natural' str is now 20, the gauntlets stop working, and you have Str 20.

[thepsyker]

The problem to me with the fixed 19 items seems to be that they set it for a number players can reach relatively easily. I can't speak for 2nd edition, but in first edition the fixed stat items like the gloves set the stat to a score that would be otherwise difficult to reach in game. Sure you could find magic pools or use wishes, but those weren't easier than getting a hold of a belt/gloves so those items remain attractive. Further even if you had invested resources in the shape of wishes in increasing strength and then leapfrogged those investments with the acquisition of a belt/gloves, that investment doesn't really feel the same as investing a "natural" part of character leveling like an ASI, so doesn't come across as quite the same cost in opportunity, IMHO.

[Spacehamster]

The problem to me with the fixed 19 items seems to be that they set it for a number players can reach relatively easily. I can't speak for 2nd edition, but in first edition the fixed stat items like the gloves set the stat to a score that would be otherwise difficult to reach in game. Sure you could find magic pools or use wishes, but those weren't easier than getting a hold of a belt/gloves so those items remain attractive. Further even if you had invested resources in the shape of wishes in increasing strength and then leapfrogged those investments with the acquisition of a belt/gloves, that investment doesn't really feel the same as investing a "natural" part of character leveling like an ASI, so doesn't come across as quite the same cost in opportunity, IMHO.

Well the "19 items" the way I see it is really nice for MAD builds but ofc a SAD build would not have use of em for that long but can always give them to a low str char later so that char gets better str save, athletics skill and so on.

[Shaofoo]

Unless you're in AL. If the player know in wich adventure he can find one, he can go for that campaign. Then the DM actually have to notice something is weird with the character and change the default treasure.



If the player is trying to go through various campaigns to be able to get a belt that he may or may not get with a subpar build (because he needs the belt to be able to function at full), then I'll applaud him for his dedication and point him to the plethora of video games where he can min max with much more ease than trying to "win" a table top game. That is if Gauntlets even appear in AL, is there any adventure that actually has it hardcoded?


The problem to me with the fixed 19 items seems to be that they set it for a number players can reach relatively easily. I can't speak for 2nd edition, but in first edition the fixed stat items like the gloves set the stat to a score that would be otherwise difficult to reach in game. Sure you could find magic pools or use wishes, but those weren't easier than getting a hold of a belt/gloves so those items remain attractive. Further even if you had invested resources in the shape of wishes in increasing strength and then leapfrogged those investments with the acquisition of a belt/gloves, that investment doesn't really feel the same as investing a "natural" part of character leveling like an ASI, so doesn't come across as quite the same cost in opportunity, IMHO.

It is easier to get a hold of a wish than the gauntlet or a belt by RAW. In fact it is literally impossible to get a belt or a gauntlet, it is even impossible to get a +1 Dagger by RAW. Magic items are not in the player's control, there is no way to get any magic items without the DM giving you permission either by crafting, buying or looting.

Also the Belts give scores that are impossible to get in the game, characters are hardcapped at 20 and the lowest belt gives you 21 up to 29.

[thepsyker]

It is easier to get a hold of a wish than the gauntlet or a belt by RAW. In fact it is literally impossible to get a belt or a gauntlet, it is even impossible to get a +1 Dagger by RAW. Magic items are not in the player's control, there is no way to get any magic items without the DM giving you permission either by crafting, buying or looting. I was talking about the gloves being easier to increase stats than using wish in 1st edition. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but permanent stat increases are no longer one of Wishes default uses and thus fall to the DM's discretion same as magic items.


Also the Belts give scores that are impossible to get in the game, characters are hardcapped at 20 and the lowest belt gives you 21 up to 29.Yes, that's why I said it was a problem with the set to 19 items, the rest of the post I was talking about the way belt/gloves worked in first edition, which seems to be what 5ed's "set to" items are modeling versus 3.x's "A+x" items. The belts are fine because they are always a boost of some sort, unless you are a 20th level barbarian, it is the set to 19 items that have issues. They don't seemed to have taken into account some of the differences in the way stat increases worked in 1st edition versus 5th edition when using their "set as" version of the gloves as a model.

[Zalabim]

The set stat to 19 items are for people who don't have a good score in that stat. If you had Gauntlets of Ogre Power, you'd give them to the cleric or thief who might need to hit in melee and cannot have 18/00 Str, rather than the brute of a fighter who only managed 18/77. That's because that fighter wants the gloves of dexterity. So for 5e, the Gauntlets are good for anyone that doesn't normally have room for good Strength. Say an Open Hand Monk wants to be better at grappling, or a Thief Rogue wants to be able to steal everything that *is* nailed down. A dwarf cleric could put them to good use.

The Headband of Intellect isn't great for wizards, but it's nifty for someone who uses Int in a secondary or tertiary manner for knowledge and investigation, or an EK or AT. The amulet of health exists too, but it's probably more useful for a more MAD class like a valor bard, paladin, or monk than it is for a fighter or barbarian. I'd be really impressed if someone took a character with 8 Con to take the maximum advantage of the amulet.

[Malifice]

This.

And on a side note, does anyone else here think that these types of items are out of place in 5e? Especially the more powerful ones like Belt of Giant's strength. 21-29 strength is alot. If you were to go on the extreme and say 29.... That is the equivalent of +4 to attack and damage rolls even if you had a 20 in the stat previously. If you had a 16 strength, that is like equipping a +6 weapon (with the added effect of increase str saves / checks / skills).

On top of that, this item makes many strength builds less powerful in my eyes because a character can pump dex and dump str with little to no consequence already. now add in even the small possibility of getting an item like this and instantly they have a strength higher than almost anything in the game. Even the weakest ones are strong like this, but to a lesser extent. Belt of Hill Giant's strength is 21 and Gauntlets of Ogre power being 19 are both huge bonuses to someone who dumped strength. Enough to make a strength build while being a full dex character.

Edit: Just thought i'd add a little thought to an otherwise bland 1 question thread =P

Are Girdles of Giant strength and Gauntlets of Ogre power 'out of place' in 5E?

As a 1E player I can honsetly say - Nope. Not at all.

Wizards get their staves, robes, scrolls and wands. Fighters get their swords, shields, armor and girdles :)

[Shaofoo]

I was talking about the gloves being easier to increase stats than using wish in 1st edition. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but permanent stat increases are no longer one of Wishes default uses and thus fall to the DM's discretion same as magic items.

This has been going on since 4e of the design of do not change the players stats at all in an arbitrary fashion. Poisons and spells do not deal stat damage or drain anymore, even level drain is out the window. The DM can change stats with whatever he wants (the books of gain stats is still here) but the game basically says to not do it and instead do other things (A poison that dealt Dex damage instead now makes your Dex skill checks at a disadvantage). The game expects ASI to be the only way to modify stats at all, which is why feats are so powerful and valuable.



Yes, that's why I said it was a problem with the set to 19 items, the rest of the post I was talking about the way belt/gloves worked in first edition, which seems to be what 5ed's "set to" items are modeling versus 3.x's "A+x" items. The belts are fine because they are always a boost of some sort, unless you are a 20th level barbarian, it is the set to 19 items that have issues. They don't seemed to have taken into account some of the differences in the way stat increases worked in 1st edition versus 5th edition when using their "set as" version of the gloves as a model.

Like I said, if it is an issue then don't use them. Quite frankly I give the writers a lot of slack in writing magic items because I know that it is 100% optional and each item in the subject I can use or not use as I see fit, it'd be like complaining about the Spell Point variant. If you want to somehow use them then just change them to the 3.x version, you aren't forced to use the items as written or even any magic items at all and the 3.x gloves do exist as Ioun stones as well.



The set stat to 19 items are for people who don't have a good score in that stat. If you had Gauntlets of Ogre Power, you'd give them to the cleric or thief who might need to hit in melee and cannot have 18/00 Str, rather than the brute of a fighter who only managed 18/77. That's because that fighter wants the gloves of dexterity. So for 5e, the Gauntlets are good for anyone that doesn't normally have room for good Strength. Say an Open Hand Monk wants to be better at grappling, or a Thief Rogue wants to be able to steal everything that *is* nailed down. A dwarf cleric could put them to good use.

The Headband of Intellect isn't great for wizards, but it's nifty for someone who uses Int in a secondary or tertiary manner for knowledge and investigation, or an EK or AT. The amulet of health exists too, but it's probably more useful for a more MAD class like a valor bard, paladin, or monk than it is for a fighter or barbarian. I'd be really impressed if someone took a character with 8 Con to take the maximum advantage of the amulet.

Your analysis is of a player centric perspective. These items do not exist for anyone, they only exist for the DM to put in there as he wishes and you as a player have no right to say otherwise. If the DM wants you to have those specific magic items to help your build then that was all on the DM, not on you as a player.

[Zalabim]

Your analysis is of a player centric perspective. These items do not exist for anyone, they only exist for the DM to put in there as he wishes and you as a player have no right to say otherwise. If the DM wants you to have those specific magic items to help your build then that was all on the DM, not on you as a player.

From a DM perspective, you don't reward a 16/17 Str fighter with gauntlets of ogre power. A headband of intellect is no longer a required item for a wizard. You reward them with something else, typically.

[thepsyker]

This has been going on since 4e of the design of do not change the players stats at all in an arbitrary fashion. Poisons and spells do not deal stat damage or drain anymore, even level drain is out the window. The DM can change stats with whatever he wants (the books of gain stats is still here) but the game basically says to not do it and instead do other things (A poison that dealt Dex damage instead now makes your Dex skill checks at a disadvantage). The game expects ASI to be the only way to modify stats at all, which is why feats are so powerful and valuable.

Right, so given that Wish no longer increases stats in this edition I fail to see what the fact that it is easier to get a wish than a magic item by RAW has to do with the point I was making that the process for increasing stats in this edition are different from those in 1st edition?


Like I said, if it is an issue then don't use them. Quite frankly I give the writers a lot of slack in writing magic items because I know that it is 100% optional and each item in the subject I can use or not use as I see fit, it'd be like complaining about the Spell Point variant. If you want to somehow use them then just change them to the 3.x version, you aren't forced to use the items as written or even any magic items at all and the 3.x gloves do exist as Ioun stones as well.
The fact that something is an optional and/or variant rule doesn't make the rule immune to critique. They made a design choice to design the Gloves in a manner that seems intended to more closely mimic their design in 1st and 2nd edition than in 3rd, but they don't seem, IMHO, to have thought through all of the consequences of that decision in regards to the differences between the editions. Now that is a small misstep in an otherwise rather nice system, indeed I think most off the "problems" with this edition are of this minor easily tweaked nature, but that doesn't mean it isn't a misstep or that it is something that can't/shouldn't be commented on. But again as I said earlier that is just my opinion and it is entirely possible that I'm placing too much emphasis on the items resemblance to its 1st edition counterpart when they were more concerned with how to fit 5-6 levels of strength enhancement into 5ed's more constrained numbers, which I recognize could be a tricky design problem to solve. Still even if that is the case it still leaves open the possibility for criticism as to how well they did or did not achieve that goal.

[Shaofoo]

From a DM perspective, you don't reward a 16/17 Str fighter with gauntlets of ogre power. A headband of intellect is no longer a required item for a wizard. You reward them with something else, typically.

You still talking from a player's perspective.

A character's optimization is not my concern as a DM, I don't tend to figure out if a character needs X item to be better unless I am designing tougher than normal encounters from now on and even then I just use my eye, I don't ask for the players what they really want.

You don't reward a player individually, you reward the group with loot (D&D is usually played with groups, not individuals) unless your games include instanced loot.

If the group decides to give the Fighter the gauntlets then that is not my problem. Even if somehow you argue that you got the leftovers so to speak that is not my problem. I try to be fair but I don't tend take wish lists to figure out my loot. If you don't like the available loot then you can just play without loot, 5e is all about playing without magic items so you won't be affected. And if you really want loot then there is 4e, that one the loot is up to the player and the game even told the DMs to take wish lists so if all you care about is mad loot then 4e is your game.

I had a group give the cleric a weapon that he wasn't proficient and skipping over two guys who were proficient with the weapon. Sometimes the group doesn't make the most optimal choices so even when you intend something the group can disregard it.





The fact that something is an optional and/or variant rule doesn't make the rule immune to critique. They made a design choice to design the Gloves in a manner that seems intended to more closely mimic their design in 1st and 2nd edition than in 3rd, but they don't seem, IMHO, to have thought through all of the consequences of that decision in regards to the differences between the editions. Now that is a small misstep in an otherwise rather nice system, indeed I think most off the "problems" with this edition are of this minor easily tweaked nature, but that doesn't mean it isn't a misstep or that it is something that can't/shouldn't be commented on. But again as I said earlier that is just my opinion and it is entirely possible that I'm placing too much emphasis on the items resemblance to its 1st edition counterpart when they were more concerned with how to fit 5-6 levels of strength enhancement into 5ed's more constrained numbers, which I recognize could be a tricky design problem to solve. Still even if that is the case it still leaves open the possibility for criticism as to how well they did or did not achieve that goal.

You can critique it if you wish, I also say that it is a very bad item that I would never use if I was a DM but the point is that the problem it can cause is nonexistent because you can just shelve the item and never bring it out. Maybe the designers didn't really put much thought into magic items because they have faith that we can judge the power of the item and use it or not as we wish. And like I said the 3.x stat up items exist as ioun stones so the concept and mechanics aren't lost (they even can't raise a stat beyond 20).

This isn't defending from criticism, it is more saying that maybe the reason things are like that because they didn't care much.

[ad_hoc]

Magic items break the game. It is what they do, what makes them special.

A Deck of Many Things will completely destroy a campaign if used, that doesn't mean that 5e is bad because of it.

5e does not assume magic item shops. When you add them, strange things happen. That isn't the designer's fault.

I am glad they are in the game. I think it is great to get the chance to roll them in a treasure hoard.

[Sigreid]

This.

And on a side note, does anyone else here think that these types of items are out of place in 5e? Especially the more powerful ones like Belt of Giant's strength. 21-29 strength is alot. If you were to go on the extreme and say 29.... That is the equivalent of +4 to attack and damage rolls even if you had a 20 in the stat previously. If you had a 16 strength, that is like equipping a +6 weapon (with the added effect of increase str saves / checks / skills).

On top of that, this item makes many strength builds less powerful in my eyes because a character can pump dex and dump str with little to no consequence already. now add in even the small possibility of getting an item like this and instantly they have a strength higher than almost anything in the game. Even the weakest ones are strong like this, but to a lesser extent. Belt of Hill Giant's strength is 21 and Gauntlets of Ogre power being 19 are both huge bonuses to someone who dumped strength. Enough to make a strength build while being a full dex character.

Edit: Just thought i'd add a little thought to an otherwise bland 1 question thread =P

I don't. I see it as these types of items being for allowing the DM to use the over CR20 beasties.

[Gritmonger]

I look at "Gauntlets of Ogre Power" as being magic items of a type that steal a stat from another creature type - just like shapechange resets all your stats to the transformed creature's (at least physical stats) the gauntlets apply the stat of an ogre to your form, that's it. No plusses - and no effect if you're already stronger than an ogre, which to me makes sense. Otherwise they'd be called "Gauntlets of adding a bonus to your strength."

[RickAllison]

I look at "Gauntlets of Ogre Power" as being magic items of a type that steal a stat from another creature type - just like shapechange resets all your stats to the transformed creature's (at least physical stats) the gauntlets apply the stat of an ogre to your form, that's it. No plusses - and no effect if you're already stronger than an ogre, which to me makes sense. Otherwise they'd be called "Gauntlets of adding a bonus to your strength."

I kind of like the idea of a BBEG who mainly gets his power by min-maxing with the set-to magic items as dump stats to have 19-20 in everything. Gauntlets of Ogre Strength, Headband of Intellect, Amulet of Health, with 15's in Charisma, Dexterity, and Wisdom. Grab Half-Elf or something similar, and you have an (especially gestalt) enemy that can level with the players, but have an L1 spread of 19/16/19/16/19/17. Heck, make him a Lore Bard/Assassin Rogue and give him the Actor feat and he will be an excellent urban intrigue enemy who can still match the players for physical contests. Actually, I kind of like this idea...

[Nu]

This.

And on a side note, does anyone else here think that these types of items are out of place in 5e? Especially the more powerful ones like Belt of Giant's strength. 21-29 strength is alot. If you were to go on the extreme and say 29.... That is the equivalent of +4 to attack and damage rolls even if you had a 20 in the stat previously. If you had a 16 strength, that is like equipping a +6 weapon (with the added effect of increase str saves / checks / skills).

On top of that, this item makes many strength builds less powerful in my eyes because a character can pump dex and dump str with little to no consequence already. now add in even the small possibility of getting an item like this and instantly they have a strength higher than almost anything in the game. Even the weakest ones are strong like this, but to a lesser extent. Belt of Hill Giant's strength is 21 and Gauntlets of Ogre power being 19 are both huge bonuses to someone who dumped strength. Enough to make a strength build while being a full dex character.

Edit: Just thought i'd add a little thought to an otherwise bland 1 question thread =P

Yes, the items are out of place, and it really starts to show when you try to run a game where magical items are more common. They don't interact with the system in place very well.

It's especially obvious when you use the advanced-start guidelines in the DMG for the various tiers that have players begin with one or more magical items, because then it suddenly makes a lot of sense to dump a particular ability score and pick a magic item that sets it to a high value.

I don't feel like those kinds of items add enough to the game to be worth the annoyances they create. The idea behind the items is fine, but I feel the implementation would've been better as an ability score bump (some items already do this) while attuned rather than setting it at a certain value.

[pwykersotz]

I might be the only one in this thread who thinks this, but I like the static stat assignment as opposed to a +X. It feels more thematic to me when trying to draw correlation to other lore. You don't hear so much about the kid who found magic gauntlets that made him almost (but not quite!) as strong as his bullies, but you do hear about the kid who can suddenly lift a car. Also, it keeps the game well within expected bounds. It is true that you could do the same by having the max stat be limited as was recommended earlier (+4 up to 19), but from my perspective this makes it too much into a mechanical contrivance and takes away from its awesomeness.

I don't have any deep insights about whether it's right or wrong, I just like it as-is.

[Segev]

Mechanically, the trouble with "set stat at X" items is that they are best used by BREAKING the themes to which the party has been building. Leave out of it whether you should "count" on them or not.

A 5-man-band that has a cleric with strength secondary and a fighter with strength primary that comes across a belt of giant strength that sets strength to 22 is actively getting more benefit from giving the cleric (at strength 16 or 17) an extra +3 to hit than by giving the fighter (at strength 20) an extra +1 to hit. Even though "strongest guy" is the theme towards which the fighter was building, it's better to let the cleric overtake him than to let him retain the title.

It also is superior in out-of-combat: as drovers, having a 20 and 22 str pair of PCs is superior to having a 22 and 16 str pair of PCs. If they have to perform strength checks, having them able to roll with 20 and 22 is also superior than with 22 and 16.

In essence, the fighter is being "punished" for having pumped his strength to 20 by being the worse choice for getting the item that would be most in-theme for his build.

[coredump]

It's especially obvious when you use the advanced-start guidelines in the DMG for the various tiers that have players begin with one or more magical items, because then it suddenly makes a lot of sense to dump a particular ability score and pick a magic item that sets it to a high value. .

Thats not a problem of the item, that is a problem with how you guys deal with character creation and magic item selection.



I might be the only one in this thread who thinks this, but I like the static stat assignment as opposed to a +X. It feels more thematic to me when trying to draw correlation to other lore. You don't hear so much about the kid who found magic gauntlets that made him almost (but not quite!) as strong as his bullies, but you do hear about the kid who can suddenly lift a car. Also, it keeps the game well within expected bounds. It is true that you could do the same by having the max stat be limited as was recommended earlier (+4 up to 19), but from my perspective this makes it too much into a mechanical contrivance and takes away from its awesomeness.

I don't have any deep insights about whether it's right or wrong, I just like it as-is.
You are not the only one. I think the 'set' stat makes a lot more sense, and gives a better feel to the magic items. I much prefer them to a +X item.

[Segev]

I wonder if there's a way to capture the "feel" given by "set at" stat items while mitigating the fact that they encourage, from an optimization standpoint, anti-thematic distribution. (Heck, as a fighter with 20 strength who gets one of these, I'd almost be regretting not having raised Dex and Con more in the past now that I have a 22+ str no matter what my investment was.)

Something that gives a bigger return for having more strength, or poses a cost for gaining "excessive" strength from it, or otherwise makes the guy who invested in having a high strength still shine compared to the guy who didn't, even if both are wearing the 22 strength belt.

[JNAProductions]

Maybe just make them work for X minutes per day?

[SharkForce]

Mechanically, the trouble with "set stat at X" items is that they are best used by BREAKING the themes to which the party has been building. Leave out of it whether you should "count" on them or not.

A 5-man-band that has a cleric with strength secondary and a fighter with strength primary that comes across a belt of giant strength that sets strength to 22 is actively getting more benefit from giving the cleric (at strength 16 or 17) an extra +3 to hit than by giving the fighter (at strength 20) an extra +1 to hit. Even though "strongest guy" is the theme towards which the fighter was building, it's better to let the cleric overtake him than to let him retain the title.

It also is superior in out-of-combat: as drovers, having a 20 and 22 str pair of PCs is superior to having a 22 and 16 str pair of PCs. If they have to perform strength checks, having them able to roll with 20 and 22 is also superior than with 22 and 16.

In essence, the fighter is being "punished" for having pumped his strength to 20 by being the worse choice for getting the item that would be most in-theme for his build.

I disagree. the cleric has tons of better things to do than use strength to make a melee attack. the melee attack is functionally that cleric's "cantrip" for lack of a better way to put it; yeah, it's there, it's better than nothing, but ultimately you use it only when you either have nothing better to do or you're so desperately exhausted of resources that it's all you have left.

in contrast, you can expect the fighter to use that strength boost every round of the fight, probably multiple times per round. if it's a battlemaster, it will even boost the DCs to higher levels, which adds even more value. plus the fighter probably has feats that benefit greatly from an increased chance to hit, which the cleric (who apparently considers melee combat to be a secondary or tertiary capability) may very well not have done.

the cleric is simply utterly lacking in class features to make the belt anywhere near as valuable as it is for the fighter in combat (out of combat is of course an entirely different matter, and is not a problem with the stat items so much as it is a problem with some classes getting very little in the way of out-of-combat utility). that cleric may get three times the boost, but the fighter is probably getting it at least three times as often. quite possibly more than that, depending on the specific cleric and fighter in question.

[Segev]

Okay, so not a cleric, but another fighter, who had gone for a more MAD build boosting dex as well as strength. Perhaps you wish to argue that he made poor build choices, but he has a 16 Str and a 16 Dex compared to the other fighter's 20 Str and 10 Dex (with the second fighter probably using heavy armor).

If you believe that the 16-str fighter "wouldn't" do that because he's not building as optimally, that only strengthens my argument:

Now, the 16-str fighter is absolutely the best one to whom to give the 22-str belt, and when you do, he has better stats all around than the 20-str fighter. The 16-str fighter is being rewarded for poorer build decisions by being an overall better character build than the 20-str fighter.

[SharkForce]

the dex fighter is a slightly better argument, although I've seen more of those go primary ranged, at which point strength is useless for their main attack method (bows and crossbows being by far the superior weapon choice for a dex-based warrior).

but, seeing as how the dex fighter is only gaining the same amount to hit and damage (on melee attacks only), I don't really see this dichotomy. the dex fighter will still have 20 in their attacking attribute, probably went acrobatics over athletics to avoid/escape grapples better (if the player wanted to be good at offensive grappling, a dex build is not the way to go), probably doesn't have GWM (which makes a bonus to attack much better, without it there just isn't nearly as much of a DPR increase), almost definitely doesn't use a heavy weapon normally to be able to use GWM...

I suppose in the weird situation where a fighter just randomly assigned attributes and ASIs with no plan on where to use them, you could argue the strength-increasing items might be better. personally, I'd argue that if the person is that bad at making decisions, you're probably better off giving the belt to the intelligence-based wizard than that guy, because at least the wizard probably understands the concept of how to make use of a higher bonus.

[Segev]

The point is that a player who either makes poor decisions or who deliberately games it so that he's a better candidate for that belt if it shows up (which he bets it will) is rewarded by getting the better end result from having it, versus the guy who is invested in the attribute in question and invested diligently. And that extra reward can make a difference such that choosing to give it to the less well-built character leads to a stronger party overall.

Setting an attribute actively discourages giving the item to the character who is most thematically invested in it, because he's the one who probably has the most of his stat resource investment "wasted" by having it set. You might, in some games, have it be that he's the ONLY person who needs that stat, but it's not likely, in my experience.

In game terminology, such items are a perverse incentive to put only as much as you need "to get by" in your primary stat, because you want to have wasted as little as possible by the time the cool item becomes available. It may be a risk, gambling that it will, but it's still not something that SHOULD be incentivized by the existence of strength-increasing items.

[JNAProductions]

Talk to your DM. Ask if there will be Gauntlets of Ogre Strength or similar items. Plan based on that.

And even then, items can get stolen.

Personally, as a DM, I just straight up would never give these items.

[Doug Lampert]

I wonder if there's a way to capture the "feel" given by "set at" stat items while mitigating the fact that they encourage, from an optimization standpoint, anti-thematic distribution. (Heck, as a fighter with 20 strength who gets one of these, I'd almost be regretting not having raised Dex and Con more in the past now that I have a 22+ str no matter what my investment was.)

Something that gives a bigger return for having more strength, or poses a cost for gaining "excessive" strength from it, or otherwise makes the guy who invested in having a high strength still shine compared to the guy who didn't, even if both are wearing the 22 strength belt.

I'd give something extra for having a higher strength. Simplest would be that the physical abilities are connected (they really are, you can't be fast without a certain amount of strength, and fitness training typically builds both strength and endurance), so declare that every point your pre-guantlets strength is above 16 is added instead to your constitution while wearing the attuned gauntlets.

Now the strength 20 guy gets 2 extra HP/level from the item of strength.

You can do something similar for other "boost" items, pick a related secondary characteristic, and boost that instead or in addition when you get the booster item for that ability.

[Segev]

Personally, as a DM, I just straight up would never give these items.

Which is, itself, a suggestion that there might be issues with them.

[JNAProductions]

I'd give something extra for having a higher strength. Simplest would be that the physical abilities are connected (they really are, you can't be fast without a certain amount of strength, and fitness training typically builds both strength and endurance), so declare that every point your pre-guantlets strength is above 16 is added instead to your constitution while wearing the attuned gauntlets.

Now the strength 20 guy gets 2 extra HP/level from the item of strength.

You can do something similar for other "boost" items, pick a related secondary characteristic, and boost that instead or in addition when you get the booster item for that ability.

That's actually a really cool idea. I like it.

[RickAllison]

I'd give something extra for having a higher strength. Simplest would be that the physical abilities are connected (they really are, you can't be fast without a certain amount of strength, and fitness training typically builds both strength and endurance), so declare that every point your pre-guantlets strength is above 16 is added instead to your constitution while wearing the attuned gauntlets.

Now the strength 20 guy gets 2 extra HP/level from the item of strength.

You can do something similar for other "boost" items, pick a related secondary characteristic, and boost that instead or in addition when you get the booster item for that ability.

A simpler (if maybe underpowered) solution would be giving advantage on Strength checks if the user has an equal trait. Suddenly, the Strength user doesn't have to worry about being in Rage to get advantage on grappling checks and Fighters who didn't build around grappling can now more reliably disable more dangerous targets.

[Segev]

Hm. If Gauntlets of Ogre Power and similar items gave you an extra roll on any [stat] check, similar to Advantage or Lucky, but used the item's Strength score, that would be equally useful to anybody who wore them. Sure, whether it's the item's roll or the character's roll that succeeds more often would vary, but the added power of an extra roll at a set (high) attribute would be the same.

[RickAllison]

Hm. If Gauntlets of Ogre Power and similar items gave you an extra roll on any [stat] check, similar to Advantage or Lucky, but used the item's Strength score, that would be equally useful to anybody who wore them. Sure, whether it's the item's roll or the character's roll that succeeds more often would vary, but the added power of an extra roll at a set (high) attribute would be the same.

Well, you would only get the extra roll if you had the naturally high strength. I like to consider it like someone who has the strength already knows how to control it. The added power from the enchanted gauntlets don't give him more power, but they give him greater control. For those with lower strength, they just get the power because the added control is needed just to manage the newfound capabilities.

[Segev]

Well, you would only get the extra roll if you had the naturally high strength. I like to consider it like someone who has the strength already knows how to control it. The added power from the enchanted gauntlets don't give him more power, but they give him greater control. For those with lower strength, they just get the power because the added control is needed just to manage the newfound capabilities.

I got what you were saying; I was proposing a slightly different approach inspired in part by your post. The idea being that this prevents you from having to have an arbitrary cut-off of minimum strength before it kicks in. It's strictly stronger than the base item as-is, but it isn't too much so. Put it on a 3-str weakling and he still has one roll that's at 19 strength (and another at 3, which probably won't matter); put it on a 20-strength fighter, and he now has two shots at success all the time, and three if he gets advantage.

[RickAllison]

I got what you were saying; I was proposing a slightly different approach inspired in part by your post. The idea being that this prevents you from having to have an arbitrary cut-off of minimum strength before it kicks in. It's strictly stronger than the base item as-is, but it isn't too much so. Put it on a 3-str weakling and he still has one roll that's at 19 strength (and another at 3, which probably won't matter); put it on a 20-strength fighter, and he now has two shots at success all the time, and three if he gets advantage.

That is a little convoluted, but it is a really cool idea that doesn't even leave out Raging barbarians. You have earned this:

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/buddyfight/images/9/97/Seal-of-approval.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140901213524

[coredump]

Not every item is meant to be a a great choice or every PC. And definitely not an 'equally great' choice for every PC.

Ogre gauntlets are just not a good item for a fighter with 20 Str. Well, neither is a +2 battle axe if he is a polearm fighter. So it goes to someone else that can use it better.

Find a Str 23 belt...?? depending on the fighter builds, it may be better for the Str 20, it may be better for the Str 16. Depending on the group, you give it to whoever can use it best, or you roll off or whatever.

The +2 battle axe likely goes to the Shield fighter and not the polearm fighter...... each fighter made their own choices while advancing, and those choices made one fighter a better match than the other. This isn't rocket science....

[Segev]

Not every item is meant to be a a great choice or every PC. And definitely not an 'equally great' choice for every PC.

Ogre gauntlets are just not a good item for a fighter with 20 Str. Well, neither is a +2 battle axe if he is a polearm fighter. So it goes to someone else that can use it better.

Find a Str 23 belt...?? depending on the fighter builds, it may be better for the Str 20, it may be better for the Str 16. Depending on the group, you give it to whoever can use it best, or you roll off or whatever.

The +2 battle axe likely goes to the Shield fighter and not the polearm fighter...... each fighter made their own choices while advancing, and those choices made one fighter a better match than the other. This isn't rocket science....

The difference is that a polearm fighter getting a battle-axe is not thematic. It's not what he's built for. It's not his story, narrative, nor style. A fighter built for strength, going for being the strongest guy around, using his strength to muscle his way through all the puny problems that get in his way, is very much the right character - thematically - to get the big bad strength item that makes him a miniature titan of tendons and sinews.

But whereas giving a polearm fighter a battleaxe is not as smart as giving a battleaxe fighter in the same party said battleaxe, giving a less-dedicated strength fighter that strength item is better than giving it to the guy who's put everything he's got into strength. All else being equal, save the other guy deciding that "for flavor" he'd shore up dex and con, he is the superior choice to give the belt of giant strength. And now he's just plain stronger than the guy who put everything he could into strength.

[Flashy]

I'd give something extra for having a higher strength. Simplest would be that the physical abilities are connected (they really are, you can't be fast without a certain amount of strength, and fitness training typically builds both strength and endurance), so declare that every point your pre-guantlets strength is above 16 is added instead to your constitution while wearing the attuned gauntlets.

Now the strength 20 guy gets 2 extra HP/level from the item of strength.

You can do something similar for other "boost" items, pick a related secondary characteristic, and boost that instead or in addition when you get the booster item for that ability.

For more of a magic-with-costs twist you could also flip that (excellent) dynamic. So instead of merely setting your score to 22 the guantlets give you +0 to +2 strength, and more importantly allow you to rearrange your other stats so you have a max of 22 in strength. The dex fighter could still spike their strength to 22, but they'd have to make tremendous sacrifices to do it.

[RickAllison]

For more of a magic-with-costs twist you could also flip that (excellent) dynamic. So instead of merely setting your stay to 22 the guantlets give you +0 to +2 strength, and more importantly allow you to rearrange your other stats so you have a max of 22 in strength. The dex fighter could still spike their strength to 22, but they'd have to make tremendous sacrifices to do it.

And now you have given me a great idea for a cursed item. Trades the primary stat of the user to bump the strength, and make the user go into an ogre-like bestial rage whenever someone tries to remove the curse...

[ad_hoc]

Which is, itself, a suggestion that there might be issues with them.

Well I would. So they are in the game for people who like them and not for those who don't. I don't see the problem.

[SharkForce]

The point is that a player who either makes poor decisions or who deliberately games it so that he's a better candidate for that belt if it shows up (which he bets it will) is rewarded by getting the better end result from having it, versus the guy who is invested in the attribute in question and invested diligently. And that extra reward can make a difference such that choosing to give it to the less well-built character leads to a stronger party overall.

Setting an attribute actively discourages giving the item to the character who is most thematically invested in it, because he's the one who probably has the most of his stat resource investment "wasted" by having it set. You might, in some games, have it be that he's the ONLY person who needs that stat, but it's not likely, in my experience.

In game terminology, such items are a perverse incentive to put only as much as you need "to get by" in your primary stat, because you want to have wasted as little as possible by the time the cool item becomes available. It may be a risk, gambling that it will, but it's still not something that SHOULD be incentivized by the existence of strength-increasing items.

the player who makes poor decisions has a drawback in that they make poor decisions. the person who deliberately games it so that he's a "better candidate" has sucked for a number of levels and is playing against the odds by a significant margin not only that it will show up, but that it will go to them (because no, it isn't "better" for them just because they suck without it, and it definitely isn't "better" from a party perspective to put the items that improve effectiveness on the person that has demonstrated poor decision making).

[Zalabim]

The difference is that a polearm fighter getting a battle-axe is not thematic. It's not what he's built for. It's not his story, narrative, nor style. A fighter built for strength, going for being the strongest guy around, using his strength to muscle his way through all the puny problems that get in his way, is very much the right character - thematically - to get the big bad strength item that makes him a miniature titan of tendons and sinews.

But whereas giving a polearm fighter a battleaxe is not as smart as giving a battleaxe fighter in the same party said battleaxe, giving a less-dedicated strength fighter that strength item is better than giving it to the guy who's put everything he's got into strength. All else being equal, save the other guy deciding that "for flavor" he'd shore up dex and con, he is the superior choice to give the belt of giant strength. And now he's just plain stronger than the guy who put everything he could into strength.

You do not power up Thor by putting him in Tony' Iron Man armor (though it's probably been done at some point). That's not thematic. The gauntlets of ogre power and similar items are for making the weak into the strong, not for making the strong stronger. There are different items for that purpose. Instead of a 23 str belt of stone giant strength, that fighter could use a +1 weapon. It's nearly as good, less rare, and doesn't require attunement. Or the manual of gainful exercise at the same rarity.

[JackPhoenix]

And now you have given me a great idea for a cursed item. Trades the primary stat of the user to bump the strength, and make the user go into an ogre-like bestial rage whenever someone tries to remove the curse...

Gauntlets of Ogre Stench? You'll get the strength of an ogre...but also the charisma of one.

[Segev]

You do not power up Thor by putting him in Tony' Iron Man armor (though it's probably been done at some point). That's not thematic. The gauntlets of ogre power and similar items are for making the weak into the strong, not for making the strong stronger. There are different items for that purpose. Instead of a 23 str belt of stone giant strength, that fighter could use a +1 weapon. It's nearly as good, less rare, and doesn't require attunement. Or the manual of gainful exercise at the same rarity.

So, your position is that the gauntlets of ogre strength are for the wizard, the periapt of sphinx's wisdom is for the barbarian, and the gloves of dexterity are for the cleric?

While it's oft said that D&D characters are the super-heroes of medieval fantasy, you don't give the rare magic item to somebody to change their entire paradigm. You give it to them to reinforce their paradigm. Iron Man has his armor because it builds his paradigm, not because it gives him a whole new one a long way into his story.

[Sigreid]

So, your position is that the gauntlets of ogre strength are for the wizard, the periapt of sphinx's wisdom is for the barbarian, and the gloves of dexterity are for the cleric?

While it's oft said that D&D characters are the super-heroes of medieval fantasy, you don't give the rare magic item to somebody to change their entire paradigm. You give it to them to reinforce their paradigm. Iron Man has his armor because it builds his paradigm, not because it gives him a whole new one a long way into his story.

I'd more of see them as being a great item for a rogue or a cleric, or a dex fighter to shore up an attribute that provides them value, but isn't their main thing. If strength is my main thing, I'm not stopping at 19.

And just as a side note, in AD&D the gauntlets set your str to 18:00, ogre strength. So this is more of a shift back than a shift to something new.

[Segev]

And just as a side note, in AD&D the gauntlets set your str to 18:00, ogre strength. So this is more of a shift back than a shift to something new.

I didn't say it was new. I said it was bad. A step backwards to a worse mechanic is not a good thing.

[Sigreid]

I didn't say it was new. I said it was bad. A step backwards to a worse mechanic is not a good thing.

An opinion you're more than welcome to. I personally like it setting a value and perhaps a specialist grows beyond what the magic could provide. I just seems heroic to me.

[Segev]

An opinion you're more than welcome to. I personally like it setting a value and perhaps a specialist grows beyond what the magic could provide. I just seems heroic to me.

I never said you shouldn't like it. Honestly, I agree that there's something more thematic about it. It's why I posited looking for ways to make it work without the horrible mechanical defects it introduces as-is. Those defects are objective, not subjective. And the set-at-19 items are less of an issue than the ones that set at more than 20, because those can't be exceeded, and yet still can be more optimal to give to the guy who has invested less in the stat in question. Even though the guy who invested everything he could is going to want to get even better in that stat, if you let him, you're objectively making a choice that weakens the party as a whole. That's bad.

[Malifice]

I never said you shouldn't like it. Honestly, I agree that there's something more thematic about it. It's why I posited looking for ways to make it work without the horrible mechanical defects it introduces as-is. Those defects are objective, not subjective. And the set-at-19 items are less of an issue than the ones that set at more than 20, because those can't be exceeded, and yet still can be more optimal to give to the guy who has invested less in the stat in question. Even though the guy who invested everything he could is going to want to get even better in that stat, if you let him, you're objectively making a choice that weakens the party as a whole. That's bad.

Look man from a philosophical position generally I deny the existence of objective reality of any kind, but asserting objective truth to justify your own subjective preference takes it a step too far.

I like the fact the items set stats at 19.

[SharkForce]

no, you aren't weakening the party as a whole.

you have player A who understands the system and knows how to make it work to their advantage. you have player B who is demonstrating the opposite of system mastery. the odds of player B making as good use of the item as player A are extremely slim.

and if it's someone doing it deliberately, then the problem is either the DM enabling the player, or it's still the player making bad decisions, because the odds are substantially against you finding the exact item you need to make your character work. the guy who makes long-shot calls regularly is not the one you want to invest party resources into making them effective.

so sure, you're getting a smaller numerical bonus. so what? i would much rather have a smaller bonus in the hands of someone who isn't making awful decisions. if anything, making good decisions is even more important for a fighter than it is for anyone else; having larger numbers to throw at things can help, but generally speaking, you're much better off making good decisions with good numbers than you would be making bad decisions with slightly better numbers. the +2 overall bonus on a secondary or tertiary stat or whatever player B is going to get is not going to compensate for bad decisions. this is not a game where having slightly larger numbers is going to solve all of your problems, and if you're acting like it is, well, you're probably going to create far worse problems by doing so.

[Segev]

Look man from a philosophical position generally I deny the existence of objective reality of any kind, but asserting objective truth to justify your own subjective preference takes it a step too far. You can claim there is no objective reality, sure. But then, why are you talking to me? I don't actually exist, and you're arguing with a figment of your own imagination. Or, subjectively, I am only not agreeing with you because you choose to take that as your subjective experience.

;P

As a firm believer in objective reality, however, I stand by my assertion that it is mathematically provable that there is a larger net benefit to the party to give a set-at-22 item to the guy with 16 in the stat than to the guy with 20 in the same stat.


I like the fact the items set stats at 19.And that's fine! I even agree, to a degree. But that doesn't make it objectively a good design choice if the objective is anything other than DISCOURAGING maximizing your favorite stat.


you have player A who understands the system and knows how to make it work to their advantage. you have player B who is demonstrating the opposite of system mastery. the odds of player B making as good use of the item as player A are extremely slim.Untrue. Player B may be doing it deliberately but with the understanding that he may always be a little behind player A. And even so, player A having better build-chops than player B doesn't mean that player B's ability to hit improving by +2 or +3 vs player A's improving only by +1 isn't going to still be superior. If Player B and Player A are both playing beat-sticks, the extra tactical edge Player A's brilliance earns him isn't going to be helped sufficiently more by an extra +1 than player B's straight-forward "run in and hit them" style will by an extra +2 or +3.


and if it's someone doing it deliberately, then the problem is either the DM enabling the player, or it's still the player making bad decisions, because the odds are substantially against you finding the exact item you need to make your character work. the guy who makes long-shot calls regularly is not the one you want to invest party resources into making them effective.Or the DM is just being a generally helpful DM that drops items semi-tailored to the party.

The fact that the DM is forced to take "well, this actually will make the PC who hasn't worked his butt off to max out his strength score objectively better-built than the one who has, despite this being a strength increasing item" into account indicates that this is a potential trap. Traps like this are bad design.

[pwykersotz]

And that's fine! I even agree, to a degree. But that doesn't make it objectively a good design choice if the objective is anything other than DISCOURAGING maximizing your favorite stat.

...

The fact that the DM is forced to take "well, this actually will make the PC who hasn't worked his butt off to max out his strength score objectively better-built than the one who has, despite this being a strength increasing item" into account indicates that this is a potential trap. Traps like this are bad design.

See, I think this is actually the point. The item's aren't there as part of the game to encourage maximizing a stat. They're thematic magic items that change the nature of a part of the game. If you want incremental buffs to max your stat, an Ioun Stone is more up your alley.

[Segev]

See, I think this is actually the point. The item's aren't there as part of the game to encourage maximizing a stat. They're thematic magic items that change the nature of a part of the game. If you want incremental buffs to max your stat, an Ioun Stone is more up your alley.

You're missing the point. Like it or not - and you clearly don't - they're in a game. They are being awarded to a party as part of a story. The game has capped what you can do without magic items at 20. The items break this rule, and in a fashion which actually makes you feel like you've squandered resources if you tried to get as high as you could - either you've wasted more you could have put elsewhere, or in having put them where you did, you made yourself a less optimal candidate, and so somebody else is now better than you for less investment (and thus has better stats elsewhere, too).

This is objectively true. No amount of saying "but I like the thematics of it" changes this.

You can't inject something "thematic" that has massive mechanical impact (such as being the primary/only way to get numbers that good) and not expect it to be considered from game-optimizing standpoints. To do so is bad design.

[JoeJ]

You're missing the point. Like it or not - and you clearly don't - they're in a game. They are being awarded to a party as part of a story. The game has capped what you can do without magic items at 20. The items break this rule, and in a fashion which actually makes you feel like you've squandered resources if you tried to get as high as you could - either you've wasted more you could have put elsewhere, or in having put them where you did, you made yourself a less optimal candidate, and so somebody else is now better than you for less investment (and thus has better stats elsewhere, too).

Okay. So why is that necessarily bad? What difference does it make if one of the other players suddenly has a 19 Strength without investing ASIs? That just makes the party stronger without hurting your high Strength character in any way.

[CantigThimble]

Okay. So why is that necessarily bad? What difference does it make if one of the other players suddenly has a 19 Strength without investing ASIs? That just makes the party stronger without hurting your high Strength character in any way.

Party has two fighters.
At level 4 Fighter A took Polearm Master and Fighter B took +2 str.
At level 5 they find Gauntlets and fighter A gets them because his strength is only 16.
Fighter A is now strictly better than fighter B because he took a feat instead of bumping his primary stat.
Fighter B is annoyed that his optimization strategies were invalidated by magic items.

[Segev]

Okay. So why is that necessarily bad? What difference does it make if one of the other players suddenly has a 19 Strength without investing ASIs? That just makes the party stronger without hurting your high Strength character in any way.
If you re-read what I'm writing, I am fairly consistently referring to the items that exceed 20, not the ones that set at 19. The ones that set at 19 are... well, they are for the second-class investor in those stats, since the first-class one will already have more than that can give him. And in no way could have gotten to 20 with them.

[pwykersotz]

You're missing the point. Like it or not - and you clearly don't - they're in a game. They are being awarded to a party as part of a story. The game has capped what you can do without magic items at 20. The items break this rule, and in a fashion which actually makes you feel like you've squandered resources if you tried to get as high as you could - either you've wasted more you could have put elsewhere, or in having put them where you did, you made yourself a less optimal candidate, and so somebody else is now better than you for less investment (and thus has better stats elsewhere, too).

This is objectively true. No amount of saying "but I like the thematics of it" changes this.

You can't inject something "thematic" that has massive mechanical impact (such as being the primary/only way to get numbers that good) and not expect it to be considered from game-optimizing standpoints. To do so is bad design.

I don't know why you're making the argument that I don't like that this is a game, but it's off base.

I take issue with what I've bolded being claimed as "objectively true". I have had a completely different experience when I handed out a "Headband of Illithid Intellect" to the party and the Paladin got it over the Wizard. The Paladin couldn't synergize worth beans with the item. It basically gave him decent Int saves and Arcana checks.

Also, your entire argument hinges on a game being played so that the end goal/result is optimally maximized. I expect that quite a few people differ on that view.

[Segev]

I don't know why you're making the argument that I don't like that this is a game, but it's off base.I'm not. I'm taking your comments that it's thematic and that it being in a game doesn't matter at face value, and colloquially apologizing that it IS, in fact, in a game and that DOES, in fact, matter.


I take issue with what I've bolded being claimed as "objectively true". I have had a completely different experience when I handed out a "Headband of Illithid Intellect" to the party and the Paladin got it over the Wizard. The Paladin couldn't synergize worth beans with the item. It basically gave him decent Int saves and Arcana checks.I apologize; you are right. "Feelings" are not objective.

You have, if you take the 22 Int item as a 20 Int wizard, objectively wasted the stat points you used to get to 20 Int. Whether you feel good about that or not.

I don't know if the "Headband of Illithid Intellect" was a set-at-19 or a set-at-higher-than-20 item; if it was the former, not quite so big a deal. The wizard was doubtless already above that, and his expenditure still LEAVES him above that. If it's the later, then the wizard is objectively worse without the headband than he can possibly be with it, but giving it to the paladin was still a larger benefit overall if the saves were that much more important to make than having an extra +1 or +2 to the wizard's spell DCs.


Also, your entire argument hinges on a game being played so that the end goal/result is optimally maximized. I expect that quite a few people differ on that view.Not really. It does, however, look at the immediate optimization level. You could argue that the summed optimization-over-time is higher.

But the point is that it's punitive to say, "Well, because you actually put effort into being the best you could be, you don't get to be superhumanly good at it, but this guy over here who put less effort into it does."

[JoeJ]

Party has two fighters.
At level 4 Fighter A took Polearm Master and Fighter B took +2 str.
At level 5 they find Gauntlets and fighter A gets them because his strength is only 16.
Fighter A is now strictly better than fighter B because he took a feat instead of bumping his primary stat.
Fighter B is annoyed that his optimization strategies were invalidated by magic items.

Fighter B should get over it. The party is stronger, which benefits everybody, including fighter B. Being jealous of somebody else's success when it does nothing to harm you is just petty.


If you re-read what I'm writing, I am fairly consistently referring to the items that exceed 20, not the ones that set at 19. The ones that set at 19 are... well, they are for the second-class investor in those stats, since the first-class one will already have more than that can give him. And in no way could have gotten to 20 with them.

Correction noted, but my response is the same. D&D is a team game, not a competition between players.

[Segev]

Fighter B should get over it. The party is stronger, which benefits everybody, including fighter B. Being jealous of somebody else's success when it does nothing to harm you is just petty.

So, what you're saying is that it's okay to punish Fighter B for having invested in strength by letting Fighter A have more strength AND a better feat. That, despite Fighter B's player clearly valuing high strength more, Fighter A being the stronger character is perfectly fine.

It's not "Jealousy over another's success," here. It's "irritation that actively working towards what I want to be good at has led to somebody else being rewarded with something that would have made me better at that precise thing instead of me...and has made him better at it than me."


Imagine if you invested 10% of your income for years in a 401k. Your cousin, who makes the same income you do, has not. He's enjoyed vacations you couldn't afford, had newer cars, and generally had nicer things based on this extra income.

Your grandparents have decided it's time to create a trust fund for their heirs. They take a loving look at all of your resources, and note that your cousin has nothing saved up for retirement, but that you've got a comfortable nest egg. Due to the way fees and tax laws are set up, breaking up the trust into smaller bits would diminish it too much to be worthwhile. Since you'll be fine without it, they therefore leave the entire trust to your cousin; it amounts to an income that will be 20% greater than what your 401k is going to pay out over time.

Feeling cheated, insulted, or otherwise hurt isn't "jealousy at your cousin's success." It's a realization that you've actively screwed yourself out of a better income during your retirement than you could have had if you had deliberately lived less responsibly up to that point.

[JoeJ]

So, what you're saying is that it's okay to punish Fighter B for having invested in strength by letting Fighter A have more strength AND a better feat. That, despite Fighter B's player clearly valuing high strength more, Fighter A being the stronger character is perfectly fine.

Punish? What a bizarre term to use. Nobody is being penalized in the slightest.


It's not "Jealousy over another's success," here. It's "irritation that actively working towards what I want to be good at has led to somebody else being rewarded with something that would have made me better at that precise thing instead of me...and has made him better at it than me."

That irritation is jealosy. The item that fighter A gets doesn't decrease fighter B's strength at all. They've lost absolutely nothing of what they worked for. Just the opposite, in fact, since they get a benefit from fighter A having that item too. And next time there's a magic item up for grabs that's useful for fighters, the party is likely to give it to fighter B.


Imagine if you invested 10% of your income for years in a 401k. Your cousin, who makes the same income you do, has not. He's enjoyed vacations you couldn't afford, had newer cars, and generally had nicer things based on this extra income.

Your grandparents have decided it's time to create a trust fund for their heirs. They take a loving look at all of your resources, and note that your cousin has nothing saved up for retirement, but that you've got a comfortable nest egg. Due to the way fees and tax laws are set up, breaking up the trust into smaller bits would diminish it too much to be worthwhile. Since you'll be fine without it, they therefore leave the entire trust to your cousin; it amounts to an income that will be 20% greater than what your 401k is going to pay out over time.

Feeling cheated, insulted, or otherwise hurt isn't "jealousy at your cousin's success." It's a realization that you've actively screwed yourself out of a better income during your retirement than you could have had if you had deliberately lived less responsibly up to that point.

What's to feel cheated or otherwise butthurt about? I've still got all the money I saved. If my cousin gets an inheritance, or wins a lottery, or whatever, I'd be happy for them.

[Segev]

Punish? What a bizarre term to use. Nobody is being penalized in the slightest.Okay. Let's put this in a vacuum. You have spent your resources to get yourself to Int 20. Your DM tells you, "Oh, I was going to drop a 22 Int headband, but since you have Int 20 already, I won't bother."

Did you, or did you not, objectively weaken your character by investing in the very thing that you were trying to optimize?




That irritation is jealosy. The item that fighter A gets doesn't decrease fighter B's strength at all. They've lost absolutely nothing of what they worked for. Just the opposite, in fact, since they get a benefit from fighter A having that item too. And next time there's a magic item up for grabs that's useful for fighters, the party is likely to give it to fighter B.Ah. You're still ignoring that I've shrugged at the set-at-19 items, and am talking about the set-above-20 items. In fact, that in the very post from which you quoted, I commented on not knowing which we were talking about wrt the headband of illithid intellect, and that it very much mattered.




What's to feel cheated or otherwise butthurt about? I've still got all the money I saved. If my cousin gets an inheritance, or wins a lottery, or whatever, I'd be happy for them.Ignore that your cousin got the money. Feel happy for them all you want.

Now, realize that, because you spent years saving and living a frugal life, you will have less money than you would have had if you had not done so. You have objectively reduced your overall wealth by trying to responsibly invest in increasing it.

[CantigThimble]

What's to feel cheated or otherwise butthurt about? I've still got all the money I saved. If my cousin gets an inheritance, or wins a lottery, or whatever, I'd be happy for them.

The point is NOT that they are better off than you and you're mad. The point is that you invested more than they did into being good at something and not only are they better off than you are, they are better off than you are BECAUSE you invested more into being good at it. That's the kind of unfairness some people would rather avoid. (outside of real life)

I'm not saying I would feel this way but that's the reason some people might be frustrated by this item and I can sympathize.

[krugaan]

See, I think this is actually the point. The item's aren't there as part of the game to encourage maximizing a stat. They're thematic magic items that change the nature of a part of the game. If you want incremental buffs to max your stat, an Ioun Stone is more up your alley.

This. As a magical item, it's definitely more thematic to have these magical gauntlets make your wimp rogue into a master arm-wrassler, as opposed to being any kind of bonus to a barbarian or a fighter.

And again, as it is, it shores up deficiencies rather than increasing strengths (bazing).

As for the >20 items ... they should always go to classes of the primary stat. The fact that you are "hurting" your progression or unfairly be penalized is irrelevant, even from a min-max point of view; it's either an upgrade or it isn't. Stats are a means to an end, not an end in an of themselves.

Unless for some reason you build a str based fighter with low strength, in which case ... I dunno, you might need help anyway?

[krugaan]

The point is NOT that they are better off than you and you're mad. The point is that you invested more than they did into being good at something and not only are they better off than you are, they are better off than you are BECAUSE you invested more into being good at it. That's the kind of unfairness some people would rather avoid. (outside of real life)

im finding it difficult to imagine an situation where this would occur in actual gameplay, can you think of an example?

[Segev]

As for the >20 items ... they should always go to classes of the primary stat. The fact that you are "hurting" your progression or unfairly be penalized is irrelevant, even from a min-max point of view; it's either an upgrade or it isn't. Stats are a means to an end, not an end in an of themselves.

Unless for some reason you build a str based fighter with low strength, in which case ... I dunno, you might need help anyway?

The point and concern is more that you are objectively better if you did NOT invest heavily in your (say) strength until you got it, at least at the end. You will have other things to make up for it.

To put it another way, if you are supposed to see a trade-off between "+2 strength" and a combat-oriented feat, having an item which explicitly rewards you for having chosen the latter over the former means that you objectively are wasting your resources if you take the former.

Sure, it's not guaranteed that you'll ever see that item. But since it's supposed to be an even trade-off, you pay less opportunity cost for the same net benefit each time you take a feat over a +2 strength.

[CantigThimble]

im finding it difficult to imagine an situation where this would occur in actual gameplay, can you think of an example?

I gave one earlier, one fighter boosts his strength and the other takes a feat. Then they find gauntlets of ogre power.

[krugaan]

The point and concern is more that you are objectively better if you did NOT invest heavily in your (say) strength until you got it, at least at the end. You will have other things to make up for it.

To put it another way, if you are supposed to see a trade-off between "+2 strength" and a combat-oriented feat, having an item which explicitly rewards you for having chosen the latter over the former means that you objectively are wasting your resources if you take the former.

Sure, it's not guaranteed that you'll ever see that item. But since it's supposed to be an even trade-off, you pay less opportunity cost for the same net benefit each time you take a feat over a +2 strength.

I can see why people would be miffed. But really, they shouldn't be, for all the reasons given earlier.

If you are that concerned with min-maxing resources, you would never be consciously playing around the *chance* that one of those items would appear.

[krugaan]

I gave one earlier, one fighter boosts his strength and the other takes a feat. Then they find gauntlets of ogre power.

In the unlikely event that a party:
- two str martials
- at a low enough str that ogre gauntlet matters
- find a powerful magical item at a low level (at high levels you have so many ASIs it hardly matters)
- immediately after leveling and having chosen two separate upgrade paths

then yes, that would totally suck for the first guy for a few levels. and I would blame the DM.

[SharkForce]

so why are we assuming the DM is going to give out a strength-boosting item to the guy with low strength, but is giving nothing whatsoever the guy who raised strength with stat-boosts?

if we have a DM who is just generally giving out items to be nice, shouldn't he be giving them out equally? and if the DM is not, then the problem is not the item, it's the unfair DM. the guy who didn't need the legendary item to boost strength can instead get a cloak of invisibility or a +3 weapon or an item that lets him fly.

(and seriously, yes i really do think that the benefit of giving the guy who makes smarter decisions a +2 on their main stat is more valuable than giving the guy who makes bad decisions a +6 on their main stat. that extra +2 on a few rolls won't help nearly as much if it isn't being applied to the right rolls; i don't honestly care all that much if the fighter has an extra +2 to dex saves. it's nice, sure, but not nearly as important as knowing that the fighter will make the decision to disarm the enemy spellcaster's focus instead of dealing a few extra points of damage to mook number 7, and i'd much rather have the guy who makes good decisions have the extra +1 DC on the saving throw the wizard has to make)

[JoeJ]

Okay. Let's put this in a vacuum. You have spent your resources to get yourself to Int 20. Your DM tells you, "Oh, I was going to drop a 22 Int headband, but since you have Int 20 already, I won't bother."

Did you, or did you not, objectively weaken your character by investing in the very thing that you were trying to optimize?

You did not objectively weaken the character you actually have. You made a character that is weaker than some hypothetical other character that you might have chosen to make, had you known the future, but only if you disregard whatever magic item the DM gives out in place of the headband.


Ah. You're still ignoring that I've shrugged at the set-at-19 items, and am talking about the set-above-20 items. In fact, that in the very post from which you quoted, I commented on not knowing which we were talking about wrt the headband of illithid intellect, and that it very much mattered.

I'm not ignoring that; it's what I'm responding to.


Ignore that your cousin got the money. Feel happy for them all you want.

Now, realize that, because you spent years saving and living a frugal life, you will have less money than you would have had if you had not done so. You have objectively reduced your overall wealth by trying to responsibly invest in increasing it.

No. I have not reduced my wealth by one cent. I have less wealth than some alternate universe version of myself why guessed differently. In that universe, the alternate me gained in wealth because of an event they did not and could not control. In this universe I lost nothing because that money was not mine to begin with. I made a rational choice not to risk my future on a chance windfall. My ability to be happy does not depend on beating out anybody else. Not even some hypothetical alternate universe self who (as far as I can tell) doesn't even exist.

And by offering this analogy, you're still assuming that this particular item is the only thing the party ever gets. But in an actual game, if fighter A gets the item of strength, then fighter B will get something else. So by pumping Strength, they got high Strength and something else besides. Just like fighter A did by taking the feat.

[Segev]

I can see why people would be miffed. But really, they shouldn't be, for all the reasons given earlier.

If you are that concerned with min-maxing resources, you would never be consciously playing around the *chance* that one of those items would appear.
Okay, I tried in my last post, but I think I can break this down more clearly here:

The concept of "opportunity cost" is what you give up in order to take what you are choosing.

In terms of feats vs. ability increases, the opportunity cost of taking an ability increase is a feat, and the opportunity cost of taking a feat is a +2 to an ability.

If you take, say, 3 feats with your fighter, you've paid an opportunity cost of up to +6 in stats. (Maybe slightly less - up to 3 less - if your feat choices were of the +1 stat variety.)

If you take 3 stat-ups, you've paid an opportunity cost of 3 feats.

If you later acquire an item that grants >20 in the stat into which you invested your +6 increase, and if you bought feats, you now have paid 0 opportunity cost for the same end benefit. If you bought stat-ups, you have now paid 3 feats in opportunity cost and are no better off than you would have been otherwise.

If we assume that feats and stat-ups are equally valuable, the net benefit from taking 3 feats vs. taking 3 stat-ups, when you have received no magic item, is the same. The net benefit from taking 3 feats vs. taking 3 stat-ups, however, if you DO get the magic item, is 3 feats.

It is therefore optimal, at all times, to take feats rather than stat-ups, because you will always get the same "amount" of net benefit if you get no magic item, but will get greater benefit if you do.



You did not objectively weaken the character you actually have. You made a character that is weaker than some hypothetical other character that you might have chosen to make, had you known the future, but only if you disregard whatever magic item the DM gives out in place of the headband.
That hypothetical other character, who could have had other things, is your opportunity cost for having made this character. That other character would have been better, objectively. The fact that the DM doesn't bother giving out an item means you have spent resources to get less than if you had spent them differently. You assume the DM would give out a different item, rather than simply giving none.




I'm not ignoring that; it's what I'm responding to.Not if you keep saying that the guy who gets the magic item is not higher-in-stat than the guy who invested in the stat.



No. I have not reduced my wealth by one cent. I have less wealth than some alternate universe version of myself why guessed differently. In that universe, the alternate me gained in wealth because of an event they did not and could not control. In this universe I lost nothing because that money was not mine to begin with. I made a rational choice not to risk my future on a chance windfall. My ability to be happy does not depend on beating out anybody else. Not even some hypothetical alternate universe self who (as far as I can tell) doesn't even exist.It is an event, nonetheless, which you know could happen, and can only happen if you spend your money on living better NOW rather than saving it up. Is this not an incentive to live well NOW with hopes for that positive event in the future, which is MADE MORE LIKELY by you living more beyond your means now?

Sure, you could say it's a choice to play it safe for a sure but lesser thing vs. playing it risky for big rewards now and later, but is that really good game design, when the costs are, essentially, less fun now for moderately more fun later vs. more fun now for a chance at even more fun later (with a risk of less fun later)?


And by offering this analogy, you're still assuming that this particular item is the only thing the party ever gets. But in an actual game, if fighter A gets the item of strength, then fighter B will get something else. So by pumping Strength, they got high Strength and something else besides. Just like fighter A did by taking the feat.

Except that my concept and interest was in being The Strong Guy. Now, no matter what item I get in compensation, I am not only not as strong as I could have been, but I am weaker than Fighter A. Who is now the go-to strong guy in the party.

If you want to play the charismatic, silver-tongued demagogue, and somebody else wants to play the clever investigator, but the clever investigator gets granted an ability that makes everybody love and adore him and hang on his every word while you get an item that lets you shatter walls with a punch, sure, both of you "got something," but the other guy is now better at your schtick than you are. He's stolen your "special thing."

You can scoff and point fingers at that player for being "petulant," but it's rather unfair to tell him that he should be HAPPY playing second-fiddle in the role he wanted to play.

[krugaan]

If we assume that feats and stat-ups are equally valuable...

not an assumption I would make, personally... particularly in later levels when you have made most of your important choices already (well, for fighter, anyway).



It is therefore optimal, at all times, to take feats rather than stat-ups, because you will always get the same "amount" of net benefit if you get no magic item, but will get greater benefit if you do.

That hypothetical other character, who could have had other things, is your opportunity cost for having made this character. That other character would have been better, objectively. The fact that the DM doesn't bother giving out an item means you have spent resources to get less than if you had spent them differently.


I believe there's a spreadsheet around somewhere where you can compare the dps differences between feat heavy and stat heavy characters. I get your point, I just disagree; it's not nearly as simple as you're making out.


You assume the DM would give out a different item, rather than simply giving none.


That's a fair assumption to make: items are given out as rewards or bandaids.

If a reward, it should be a replacement. If a bandaid, it wasn't necessary in the first place...

[Sigreid]

I never said you shouldn't like it. Honestly, I agree that there's something more thematic about it. It's why I posited looking for ways to make it work without the horrible mechanical defects it introduces as-is. Those defects are objective, not subjective. And the set-at-19 items are less of an issue than the ones that set at more than 20, because those can't be exceeded, and yet still can be more optimal to give to the guy who has invested less in the stat in question. Even though the guy who invested everything he could is going to want to get even better in that stat, if you let him, you're objectively making a choice that weakens the party as a whole. That's bad.

Haha, I was honestly just trying to make sure I didn't come across sounding like I thought you were wrong to think the way you do. :)

[Segev]

If a reward, it should be a replacement. If a bandaid, it wasn't necessary in the first place...

That's the thing: it makes the bandaid BETTER than not needing one. That's a problem.

[krugaan]

That's the thing: it makes the bandaid BETTER than not needing one. That's a problem.

What? Can you be more clear? I think you're mixing analogies here.

Bandaid is a reference to fixing imbalances between characters, usually between martials, casters, melee, and ranged. There are different size "bandaids", an item is not broken because it's being selected from the wrong sized "wound" (imbalance).

[JoeJ]

Okay, I tried in my last post, but I think I can break this down more clearly here:

The concept of "opportunity cost" is what you give up in order to take what you are choosing.

In terms of feats vs. ability increases, the opportunity cost of taking an ability increase is a feat, and the opportunity cost of taking a feat is a +2 to an ability.

If you take, say, 3 feats with your fighter, you've paid an opportunity cost of up to +6 in stats. (Maybe slightly less - up to 3 less - if your feat choices were of the +1 stat variety.)

If you take 3 stat-ups, you've paid an opportunity cost of 3 feats.

If you later acquire an item that grants >20 in the stat into which you invested your +6 increase, and if you bought feats, you now have paid 0 opportunity cost for the same end benefit. If you bought stat-ups, you have now paid 3 feats in opportunity cost and are no better off than you would have been otherwise.

I understand opportunity cost, but what you're talking about here really isn't the opportunity cost of pumping Strength, it's the opportunity cost of not knowing the future. It's not bad game design to include imperfect knowledge and the possibility of surprises.


If we assume that feats and stat-ups are equally valuable, the net benefit from taking 3 feats vs. taking 3 stat-ups, when you have received no magic item, is the same. The net benefit from taking 3 feats vs. taking 3 stat-ups, however, if you DO get the magic item, is 3 feats.

It is therefore optimal, at all times, to take feats rather than stat-ups, because you will always get the same "amount" of net benefit if you get no magic item, but will get greater benefit if you do.

If you actually believe that it's always optimal to pick feats, then why did you boost Strength, knowing that the probability of getting a > 20 was not zero? It's not bad game design if you choose to create a character who is sub-optimal by your own standard.


That hypothetical other character, who could have had other things, is your opportunity cost for having made this character. That other character would have been better, objectively. The fact that the DM doesn't bother giving out an item means you have spent resources to get less than if you had spent them differently.

If you're going to get upset about choices that you would have made differently if you'd had perfect knowledge of the future, then you're going to spend a lot of time upset without it accomplishing anything.


You assume the DM would give out a different item, rather than simply giving none.

Which is pretty likely to be the case.


Not if you keep saying that the guy who gets the magic item is not higher-in-stat than the guy who invested in the stat.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you're not worse off because they got the item. Your Strength didn't go down.


It is an event, nonetheless, which you know could happen, and can only happen if you spend your money on living better NOW rather than saving it up. Is this not an incentive to live well NOW with hopes for that positive event in the future, which is MADE MORE LIKELY by you living more beyond your means now?

I could make the same argument about not buying flood insurance. What if I spend all that money and there's no flood? Would I be justified in getting angry at the universe?


Except that my concept and interest was in being The Strong Guy. Now, no matter what item I get in compensation, I am not only not as strong as I could have been, but I am weaker than Fighter A. Who is now the go-to strong guy in the party.

If you want to play the charismatic, silver-tongued demagogue, and somebody else wants to play the clever investigator, but the clever investigator gets granted an ability that makes everybody love and adore him and hang on his every word while you get an item that lets you shatter walls with a punch, sure, both of you "got something," but the other guy is now better at your schtick than you are. He's stolen your "special thing."

You can scoff and point fingers at that player for being "petulant," but it's rather unfair to tell him that he should be HAPPY playing second-fiddle in the role he wanted to play.

So you would have been happy if the >20 item had gone to you, right? IOW, it's not the item, it's the fact that you didn't get it. But it's not the game designers' responsibility to protect your niche; that's an agreement you make with the other players at your table.

[Segev]

What? Can you be more clear? I think you're mixing analogies here.If the "band-aid" makes you have >20 in the stat you were deficient in, plus whatever else you got in return for not raising the stat, but not needing the band-aid just means you have 20 in your stat and that you lack those other things you COULD have gotten, the band-aid is better than not having needed the band-aid at all.


I understand opportunity cost, but what you're talking about here really isn't the opportunity cost of pumping Strength, it's the opportunity cost of not knowing the future. It's not bad game design to include imperfect knowledge and the possibility of surprises.Um. That is what opportunity cost is. That and discounted reward functions.


If you actually believe that it's always optimal to pick feats, then why did you boost Strength, knowing that the probability of getting a > 20 was not zero? It's not bad game design if you choose to create a character who is sub-optimal by your own standard.Indeed. Why WOULD you boost strength? The optimal action is to never do so, except possibly as a side-consequence of a feat which also does so (if you want that feat's other features). It is bad design to create options where one is OBJECTIVELY worse than the other, especially if the reason it's worse is hidden behind another book and/or unknowns that you have to study more deeply to even appreciate the possibility of. These are known as "trap" options.


If you're going to get upset about choices that you would have made differently if you'd had perfect knowledge of the future, then you're going to spend a lot of time upset without it accomplishing anything.Or I'll take the option I was able to calculate would give me the greatest return either way. With these items, boosting your primary stat is a trap as long as there exist feats which help you with your goals.


I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you're not worse off because they got the item. Your Strength didn't go down.But neither did your other stats go up, nor you acquire the feats they have. They are objectively better than you are, and it is because you chose to try to be as good in what they are now better than you as you could be. You sacrificed things they did not, and they have what you sacrificed for more than you ever can.

And, worse, if you had put your stats elsewhere, you might have gotten the item.


I could make the same argument about not buying flood insurance. What if I spend all that money and there's no flood? Would I be justified in getting angry at the universe?Insurance is interesting. It's the only gamble in the universe where both sides hope the house wins. Even if you "win," you're worse off than you would otherwise have been, if only due to the intangibles that are irreplaceable and the time you lose to handling it. That makes it a poor analogy.


So you would have been happy if the >20 item had gone to you, right? IOW, it's not the item, it's the fact that you didn't get it. But it's not the game designers' responsibility to protect your niche; that's an agreement you make with the other players at your table.It is, however, better game design when they do not create items which actively encourage niche-crushing. By putting the only way to exceed 20 in a stat (ignoring the Barbarian's slight edge, there) in magic items which give the same stat no matter how much you did put into it, they've created this situation. That is where the bad design comes in.

It's the fact that, for having worked hard on getting to be as good as I could, the item does less for me than it does for somebody who actively avoided doing anything to get even average in the stat in question. At BEST, it makes me better and my investment in my own stat irrelevant (thus making those opportunity costs paid fruitlessly); at worst, it makes somebody else who didn't invest in it better than me at what I'm supposed to be good at, while I'm also worse than them at everything else because they put their resources into being better at other things.

[krugaan]

If the "band-aid" makes you have >20 in the stat you were deficient in, plus whatever else you got in return for not raising the stat, but not needing the band-aid just means you have 20 in your stat and that you lack those other things you COULD have gotten, the band-aid is better than not having needed the band-aid at all.

Yeah. That SIZE bandaid.


It is, however, better game design when they do not create items which actively encourage niche-crushing. By putting the only way to exceed 20 in a stat (ignoring the Barbarian's slight edge, there) in magic items which give the same stat no matter how much you did put into it, they've created this situation. That is where the bad design comes in.

It's the fact that, for having worked hard on getting to be as good as I could, the item does less for me than it does for somebody who actively avoided doing anything to get even average in the stat in question. At BEST, it makes me better and my investment in my own stat irrelevant (thus making those opportunity costs paid fruitlessly); at worst, it makes somebody else who didn't invest in it better than me at what I'm supposed to be good at, while I'm also worse than them at everything else because they put their resources into being better at other things.

Blame your DM then.

[pwykersotz]

Segev, I really think you're overstating the problem here. You have a great point that is small in scope, and you're trying to make it bigger than it is. These items aren't game-defining by any measure, they're minor inconveniences at worst, and that's if you subscribe to every doom and gloom you predict.

And in any case, even if it IS as bad as you say, I'll still take it over the feeling of irrelevance without the item at all that 3.5 fostered. I grew to hate the +X items because they represented a tax on your character, one you had to pay to be anything at all. In addition to that, they lacked any sort of interesting nature. "Why does the Belt of Giant's Strength only make me able to lift a little bit more?" or "I'm stronger than a giant, why does this belt help me again?"

I could go on about how spells already do this to a limited degree anyway, and most permanent magical items distort or break the bounded accuracy or the assumptions on which characters are built, but it doesn't seem like you're willing to be convinced.

[krugaan]

Segev, I really think you're overstating the problem here. You have a great point that is small in scope, and you're trying to make it bigger than it is. These items aren't game-defining by any measure, they're minor inconveniences at worst, and that's if you subscribe to every doom and gloom you predict.

And in any case, even if it IS as bad as you say, I'll still take it over the feeling of irrelevance without the item at all that 3.5 fostered. I grew to hate the +X items because they represented a tax on your character, one you had to pay to be anything at all. In addition to that, they lacked any sort of interesting nature. "Why does the Belt of Giant's Strength only make me able to lift a little bit more?" or "I'm stronger than a giant, why does this belt help me again?"

I could go on about how spells already do this to a limited degree anyway, and most permanent magical items distort or break the bounded accuracy or the assumptions on which characters are built, but it doesn't seem like you're willing to be convinced.

It's a point of view difference, not a lack of understanding.

[JoeJ]

Indeed. Why WOULD you boost strength? The optimal action is to never do so, except possibly as a side-consequence of a feat which also does so (if you want that feat's other features). It is bad design to create options where one is OBJECTIVELY worse than the other, especially if the reason it's worse is hidden behind another book and/or unknowns that you have to study more deeply to even appreciate the possibility of. These are known as "trap" options.

It's not objectively worse to boost Strength in the general case; only if certain very specific and unlikely events actually occur. The same would be true of every other choice you make in character creation, and necessarily will be in a game where events are not known ahead of time.

You're also assuming that having high Strength from level 1 up until you find the item is worthless.


But neither did your other stats go up, nor you acquire the feats they have. They are objectively better than you are, and it is because you chose to try to be as good in what they are now better than you as you could be. You sacrificed things they did not, and they have what you sacrificed for more than you ever can.

Again, why compare yourself to somebody else? D&D is not a competition. Would you be this upset if the Eldritch Knight gets a Wand of Fireballs because that somehow invalidates your choice to go Battle Master?


It is, however, better game design when they do not create items which actively encourage niche-crushing. By putting the only way to exceed 20 in a stat (ignoring the Barbarian's slight edge, there) in magic items which give the same stat no matter how much you did put into it, they've created this situation. That is where the bad design comes in.

And what magic item doesn't infringe on any build whatsoever that some character could hypothetically have? Remember that the party could just as easily give that > 20 Strength item to you, because that's your shtick. Then you'd have that and your regular 20 strength for the times when the item gets lost, disarmed, stolen, hit with anti-magic, or otherwise neutralized. If you'd taken feats instead of ASIs, you'd have been stuck playing through however many level without getting to be Mr. Strong, and you might never get the item and be able to take on that role at all.

[pwykersotz]

It's a point of view difference, not a lack of understanding.

Oh, definitely agreed. Segev is smart. Just unwilling to shift the paradigm in this instance.

[krugaan]

Oh, definitely agreed. Segev is smart. Just unwilling to shift the paradigm in this instance.

I bet I could shift that paradigm if I had a girdle of cloud giant strength.

I could shift the whole universe.

[pwykersotz]

I bet I could shift that paradigm if I had a girdle of cloud giant strength.

I could shift the whole universe.

And you wouldn't even have to max your strength! You could take feats instead. :smalltongue:

[krugaan]

And you wouldn't even have to max your strength! You could take feats instead. :smalltongue:

Ok, NOW I see what's broken about it.

Next up, Tavern brawler: what damage die would you assign the universe to use as an improvised weapon?

I say d10.

[RickAllison]

Ok, NOW I see what's broken about it.

Next up, Tavern brawler: what damage die would you assign the universe to use as an improvised weapon?

I say d10.

No, d100. And make the player find and roll the ball thing rather than just 2d10, and he has to roll it so it tramples across the DM's map.

[krugaan]

No, d100. And make the player find and roll the ball thing rather than just 2d10, and he has to roll it so it tramples across the DM's map.

Hah. Imagine what sort of reaction that would prompt in character.

"We were fighting a cloud giant who picked up the universe as a weapon. All of a sudden, a mighty ball, graven with alien sigils appeared and rolled through our party!"

"Dude, you realize you don't walk anywhere, right? Some giant hand comes and moves you around."

[Segev]

Blame your DM then.Oh, sure. But that's just the Oberoni fallacy: if the DM has to take into account things the game doesn't warn him about, then he's having to fix problems in the game's design. (Okay, that's stretching the Oberoni fallacy a bit, but it is definitely in the same family.)


Segev, I really think you're overstating the problem here. You have a great point that is small in scope, and you're trying to make it bigger than it is. These items aren't game-defining by any measure, they're minor inconveniences at worst, and that's if you subscribe to every doom and gloom you predict.I am, perhaps, making it seem bigger than it is; mostly because I'm trying to make the case that it is a problem and that it doesn't go away just because you pretend it doesn't exist. It is something which can be done better than it has been. You're right; it's not the end of the world. It's just...an irritant. And it's one that's more intrinsic than some of the grander-scope problems of 3.5.


And in any case, even if it IS as bad as you say, I'll still take it over the feeling of irrelevance without the item at all that 3.5 fostered. I grew to hate the +X items because they represented a tax on your character, one you had to pay to be anything at all.That's fair, but unrelated. The assumption that you will or will not have a given item is what makes the difference, there. In 5e, it's assumed you won't; if you do, you're more powerful than the game expects. In 3e, it's expected you will; if you do not, you're weaker than the game expects. The +X vs. set-to-Y nature of them is not really relevant to what the expectation is.


In addition to that, they lacked any sort of interesting nature. "Why does the Belt of Giant's Strength only make me able to lift a little bit more?" or "I'm stronger than a giant, why does this belt help me again?"Fair complaints. Not relevant to game mechanics, but certainly to game "feel," which is by no means unimportant to design! (If it were unimportant to game design, I wouldn't mind 4e's class mechanics as much as I do.)


I could go on about how spells already do this to a limited degree anyway, and most permanent magical items distort or break the bounded accuracy or the assumptions on which characters are built, but it doesn't seem like you're willing to be convinced.As others have said, I understand the considerations. I am not really saying we should have the +X items so much as the set-to-Y items are bad design. As written, anyway. I think giving you an extra d20 roll on relevant checks that uses the Y-set attribute would be a good change. It would actually make whether you've invested in the stat on your own, and to what extent, relevant, while still giving even the 19-str gauntlets a use for the 22-str barbarian!


It's not objectively worse to boost Strength in the general case; only if certain very specific and unlikely events actually occur. The same would be true of every other choice you make in character creation, and necessarily will be in a game where events are not known ahead of time.It is sub-optimal to boost strength, because of the existence of that possibility. Optimality works off of discounted reward functions, not just greedy apriori or one-step analysis.


You're also assuming that having high Strength from level 1 up until you find the item is worthless.I see why it seems that way; it's why I shifted to using the opportunity cost analysis of the discounted reward function that takes into account the probabilty of getting the item. You get the "same amount" of benefit from a feat or +2 strength, if you don't get the item you wind up the same "value" either way. If, however, you do get the item, if you took +2 strength, you are objectively worse off than if you took the feat.

Since choosing the +2 stat means you're getting either "baseline" or "a little better," but choosing the feat means you're getting "baseline" or "a lot better," choosing the feat is objectively the better choice. Worst case scenario in choosing the feat is the same result as worst case scenario in choosing the +2 stat. Best case scenario in choosing the feat is BETTER than best case scenario in choosing the +2 stat. This is simply reward-function analysis.


Again, why compare yourself to somebody else? D&D is not a competition. Would you be this upset if the Eldritch Knight gets a Wand of Fireballs because that somehow invalidates your choice to go Battle Master?No, because it doesn't invalidate my choice nor make him better at my "thing" than I am.


And what magic item doesn't infringe on any build whatsoever that some character could hypothetically have? Remember that the party could just as easily give that > 20 Strength item to you, because that's your shtick. Then you'd have that and your regular 20 strength for the times when the item gets lost, disarmed, stolen, hit with anti-magic, or otherwise neutralized. If you'd taken feats instead of ASIs, you'd have been stuck playing through however many level without getting to be Mr. Strong, and you might never get the item and be able to take on that role at all.Items which are better for those who've focused on the ability-area in question than those who have not, or at least do not overwrite the competency of whoever has them with an amount greater than the specialist could have gotten "on their own."




As others have said, I get the way it's designed and why. I just think it could be done better and that this was a choice that either wasn't thought out completely or was deliberately chosen despite being flawed.

[JoeJ]

It is sub-optimal to boost strength, because of the existence of that possibility.

This is incorrect. It's not possible to determine whether or not boost strength is suboptimal until you first specify what you are optimizing to do. Someone optimizing for a different task will evaluate the choices differently.


I see why it seems that way; it's why I shifted to using the opportunity cost analysis of the discounted reward function that takes into account the probabilty of getting the item. You get the "same amount" of benefit from a feat or +2 strength, if you don't get the item you wind up the same "value" either way. If, however, you do get the item, if you took +2 strength, you are objectively worse off than if you took the feat.

You are subjectively worse off. It's not objective because there is no objective way to compare the value of a stat bonus versus a feat. All you can say is that one choice is less fun for you. That's certainly a valid opinion, but it is just an opinion. You're mistaking your subjectively preference for an objective superiority that simply doesn't exist.


Since choosing the +2 stat means you're getting either "baseline" or "a little better," but choosing the feat means you're getting "baseline" or "a lot better," choosing the feat is objectively the better choice. Worst case scenario in choosing the feat is the same result as worst case scenario in choosing the +2 stat. Best case scenario in choosing the feat is BETTER than best case scenario in choosing the +2 stat. This is simply reward-function analysis.

Your argument is only valid if you don't particularly care whether you take a stat boost or a feat.

If is doesn't make any difference to you whether you take a stat boost or a feat, why get upset that there's a small chance of getting a magic item that makes one of those choices better? If you do have a strong preference, then you're absolutely better off choosing that, regardless of whether or not certain items might someday appear. Otherwise, you're denying yourself the certainty of a large benefit now for a very small chance of the same benefit later.

[MeeposFire]

I always preferred the older versions of the str items. Setting your score to what the creature has is SO very thematic. That is how thees items work in many stories and shows. You have an item that makes you as strong as a giant. Not an item that just makes you slightly stronger (for example a low str character using 3e gauntlets of ogre power will not REMOTELY be close to being as strong as an ogre and that is a pity). I just think that thematically it is so much better. Does it suck that a high str character gets less of a bonus potentially compared to a low str version of the same class? Only very slightly but on the other hand it means I get to save an attunement slot on a different item that may be even cooler and I get to tell people I am still stronger than the cheater using some magic item :smalltongue: .

[JoeJ]

I always preferred the older versions of the str items. Setting your score to what the creature has is SO very thematic. That is how thees items work in many stories and shows. You have an item that makes you as strong as a giant. Not an item that just makes you slightly stronger (for example a low str character using 3e gauntlets of ogre power will not REMOTELY be close to being as strong as an ogre and that is a pity). I just think that thematically it is so much better. Does it suck that a high str character gets less of a bonus potentially compared to a low str version of the same class? Only very slightly but on the other hand it means I get to save an attunement slot on a different item that may be even cooler and I get to tell people I am still stronger than the cheater using some magic item :smalltongue: .

I agree, but I think it's also very thematic for a character who has pumped their Strength up as high as it can go to then find a Belt of Giant Strength that takes it up even higher. Were the ASIs devoted to boosting Strength wasted? By no means! The only reason they got that item in the first place was that they had showed the DM they wanted to play the super strong character.

[georgie_leech]

Perhaps as a compromise solution, what of said Strength boosting items set your score to a certain total, but if you had, say, 19 or 20 Strength, you get 2 higher than what it sets at? You still get the oddity of very low strength characters benefiting more from it, but low strength/skill/whatever characters always benefit more from magic items because it's a bigger bonus comparatively for them. This would at least give high STR characters something for their investment, even if it's not quite.as much as it could have been. Maybe the transformation wouldn't be very dramatic if Hercules picked up Mjolnir, but I bet he could swing it a lot harder than Joe the Plumber could.

[SharkForce]

feats cost as much as an ASI, but a feat is not always worth as much effectiveness as an ASI.

for a fighter, you have probably 2, maybe 3 feats for any given build that genuinely increase your effectiveness in combat. after that, well, you're better off taking the ASI as an actual ASI. higher strength is better than grabbing shield expert or defensive duelist unless those are actually the main focus of your build. there is certainly an argument to be made that polearm master and great weapon master are worth leaving ASIs to later, and you could maybe even make a case for lucky, but for the most part after that you should be going for strength.

[Shaofoo]

Quite frankly it just seems that there is a complaint about something that might not even happen. I mean like I said before, if a certain magic item seems to be broken then the DM has all the right not to use it and ignore it, not even the players can make the DM put the item in the game by the rules.

I mean the Deck of Many Things is known to basically be a campaign destroyer by some but that doesn't mean that I have to put them in the game in any way just because it appears in the DMG.

You can hate some (or even all) magic items and you can have your opinions on how bad the makers made the items but any problem that can be caused is non existent because the option of just not using the item in your games exists.

If you are worried that just because it exists that there is a chance to get it because the DM wants to put in all the magic items then I hope you never find the Vecna artifacts cause those have an at will instant death touch. I mean imagine trying to optimize your damage to deal the most damage available but then someone can just run up and touch to kill once.

Magic items break the rules by design, if you want to keep the rules as pristine as possible then either don't use magic items or make sure you understand which magic items do not break the rules established (go for the decanter of endless water or an alchemist jug) and if you want magic items that break the rules you will have to change your paradigm so that everything is balanced.

[Zalabim]

So, your position is that the gauntlets of ogre strength are for the wizard, the periapt of sphinx's wisdom is for the barbarian, and the gloves of dexterity are for the cleric?

While it's oft said that D&D characters are the super-heroes of medieval fantasy, you don't give the rare magic item to somebody to change their entire paradigm. You give it to them to reinforce their paradigm. Iron Man has his armor because it builds his paradigm, not because it gives him a whole new one a long way into his story.

Yes, the armor is Iron Man's whole paradigm. Otherwise, he's a brilliant industrialist, or the superhero equivalent to a wizard. The 19 stat items are uncommon or rare. The greater than 20 stat items are very rare or legendary. Anyway, I see you've dropped the thematic argument.


So, what you're saying is that it's okay to punish Fighter B for having invested in strength by letting Fighter A have more strength AND a better feat. That, despite Fighter B's player clearly valuing high strength more, Fighter A being the stronger character is perfectly fine.

It's not "Jealousy over another's success," here. It's "irritation that actively working towards what I want to be good at has led to somebody else being rewarded with something that would have made me better at that precise thing instead of me...and has made him better at it than me."


Imagine if you invested 10% of your income for years in a 401k. Your cousin, who makes the same income you do, has not. He's enjoyed vacations you couldn't afford, had newer cars, and generally had nicer things based on this extra income.

Your grandparents have decided it's time to create a trust fund for their heirs. They take a loving look at all of your resources, and note that your cousin has nothing saved up for retirement, but that you've got a comfortable nest egg. Due to the way fees and tax laws are set up, breaking up the trust into smaller bits would diminish it too much to be worthwhile. Since you'll be fine without it, they therefore leave the entire trust to your cousin; it amounts to an income that will be 20% greater than what your 401k is going to pay out over time.

Feeling cheated, insulted, or otherwise hurt isn't "jealousy at your cousin's success." It's a realization that you've actively screwed yourself out of a better income during your retirement than you could have had if you had deliberately lived less responsibly up to that point.

Fighter A is objectively better than Fighter B because A has a magic item, and B has nothing. There was just as much of a chance of finding a Dancing Sword (greatsword?) or Manual of Gainful Exercise. Then Fighter A would have nothing and Fighter B would be objectively better off.

It's silly, but for the inheritance, if you'd squandered your money then wouldn't the grandparents decide to split the fund anyway, leaving you both with (after taxes and fees) less than 60% of what you could have if you'd saved? Or decide who gets all of it with a coinflip. So you'd get 120% or 0% or let's say 55% each, or guaranteed 100%. What if they see that you've been responsible with your money and decide to let you handle investment with it until you retire, and let you decide how much to support your irresponsible cousin when you're both 65.

There are items that overwrite the benefits of raising strength, but there are also items that overwrite the benefits of taking Polearm Master, or that only work if you've raised strength. (GWM is a pretty safe bet though.) There is no intrinsic problem.

[Werecorpse]

Here's an example where it's a problem

I run a game that has a paladin who has 20 Str & 10 con and a barbarian (bear totem) with 14 Str and 18con. One is the glass canon the other the melee sponge. Each has their roles. If the group finds an amulet of health or gauntlets of ogre power they would go to the one who got the greatest benefit. This would make the other truly second rate.

Having said this they were iconic items pre 3e. In 3e they became bland.

I'm not sure of the answer. When I played 1e we almost never gave out girdles and gauntlets. I think I prefer them giving small boosts like the enhance ability spell or barbarians rage damage bonus something where a guy with 20 strength who spent 3 level up bonuses on it and has worked toward it doesn't suddenly feel second rate.

[Spectre9000]

Just create your own magic items that add to stats instead of setting them to exact numbers. Who said anyone had to only use those items? You don't like them? Don't use them. Make new ones you do like. Why are there so many pages arguing about something so optional?

[RickAllison]

Just create your own magic items that add to stats instead of setting them to exact numbers. Who said anyone had to only use those items? You don't like them? Don't use them. Make new ones you do like. Why are there so many pages arguing about something so optional?

Because as a DM, they might have control over whether it is distributed or not. As a player? Not so much. That's only one side of the argument that may or may not motivate people, but its still an aspect that's relevant.

[Nu]

Thats not a problem of the item, that is a problem with how you guys deal with character creation and magic item selection.

Or more accurately, it's a problem when using the guidelines for character creation given in the DMG--the only guidelines given for creating a character that doesn't start at level 1 (or in the first tier).


Just create your own magic items that add to stats instead of setting them to exact numbers. Who said anyone had to only use those items? You don't like them? Don't use them. Make new ones you do like. Why are there so many pages arguing about something so optional?

Any rule in the game is "optional". There are pages and pages of discussion on the merits of various feats and those are specifically listed as "optional rules". That's not a good reason to not discuss their merits and faults.

[Shaofoo]

Here's an example where it's a problem

I run a game that has a paladin who has 20 Str & 10 con and a barbarian (bear totem) with 14 Str and 18con. One is the glass canon the other the melee sponge. Each has their roles. If the group finds an amulet of health or gauntlets of ogre power they would go to the one who got the greatest benefit. This would make the other truly second rate.

The effectiveness of the other isn't diminished just because a person is buffed up. The group as a whole is better now with those items. Also people tend to expect that whoever got the item they should get something else down the line, so while the guy got the item that was of the biggest benefit one should expect the other guy to get the next useful magic item. This is a problem with most situations that the moment only matters and the future doesn't exist at all. Basically to you as soon as the guy gets the magic items the game is over and whoever is the most efficient at an arbitrary task wins the game, that isn't how D&D goes usually (not by the book anyway).

Of course if the Dm is showering one player with items and the other player gets jack THEN that is a problem.



Having said this they were iconic items pre 3e. In 3e they became bland.

I'm not sure of the answer. When I played 1e we almost never gave out girdles and gauntlets. I think I prefer them giving small boosts like the enhance ability spell or barbarians rage damage bonus something where a guy with 20 strength who spent 3 level up bonuses on it and has worked toward it doesn't suddenly feel second rate.

There is no answer to that that isn't a problem. Or rather the answer is just not use those items.

If your players are so envious that they are measuring their worth based on individual merits than how the group is functioning as a whole then the simple solution is just not put in any magic items and let them go from 1 to 20 with the same items and whatever the PHB has on sale.




Because as a DM, they might have control over whether it is distributed or not. As a player? Not so much. That's only one side of the argument that may or may not motivate people, but its still an aspect that's relevant.

There are a ton of magic items that can upset the balance of the game. If you are so worried that such items will affect your fun as a player then either talk to your DM about making sure of the item distribution and to the team as to how to share the loot.

Quite frankly I don't mind if a guy suddenly gets more power than me with the expectation that I will get something down the line for myself because I expect that we will all get something and that the DM is fair to everyone. If I am getting screwed out of items by the DM or the group that is a problem with the DM or the group, not the game.

[RickAllison]

Quite frankly I don't mind if a guy suddenly gets more power than me with the expectation that I will get something down the line for myself because I expect that we will all get something and that the DM is fair to everyone. If I am getting screwed out of items by the DM or the group that is a problem with the DM or the group, not the game.

That was more providing a reason why people might be passionate about it. I personally love the items, as they're great for my off-stats!

[Shaofoo]

Or more accurately, it's a problem when using the guidelines for character creation given in the DMG--the only guidelines given for creating a character that doesn't start at level 1 (or in the first tier).

Except the DMG clearly says that to use your discretion to give out items and that the table is just a suggestion and not a guideline at all. In fact you can't get a magic item till level 11th in a Low magic item campaign. You can just raise the level and nothing else if you are starting at a higher level, nothing in the book says that you have to give out magic items.

If using the suggestions gives you problems then don't use those suggestions and instead use your judgement. The DMG is full of suggestions that you can add, remove or modify as you see fit. Which is why the whole magic items being a problem is laughable because it is only a problem if the DM allows it to be.


Any rule in the game is "optional". There are pages and pages of discussion on the merits of various feats and those are specifically listed as "optional rules". That's not a good reason to not discuss their merits and faults.

You can discuss the merits and flaws of anything but the option of not adding feats or magic items is not only valid but accepted and supported by the book. If something is a problem and omitting the item so the problem doesn't exist is a valid answer.

[Spectre9000]

Any rule in the game is "optional". There are pages and pages of discussion on the merits of various feats and those are specifically listed as "optional rules". That's not a good reason to not discuss their merits and faults.

That's a cop out. Are classes optional? Are spells/abilities/ability scores optional? Yes, technically a DM can change anything and everything, and turn his D&D into a game of Bejeweled. However, there is the core infrastructure that exists within D&D that makes it D&D. Magic Items are not part of that and by their very nature, as described in PHB and DMG, are in no way set. The Magic items presented are done so as examples for DMs to generate ideas. DM's can create and give out bad Magic Items, and we can debate each one with intrinsic detail and never get anywhere, because they will always be subject to perspective and opinion. You will always have bad DM's, and if players don't like how they're using magic items, then perhaps they should find another DM. The flaws of the magic items pertinent to this thread were pointed out early on, and now everyone is just beating a dead horse.

[Shaofoo]

That was more providing a reason why people might be passionate about it. I personally love the items, as they're great for my off-stats!

People are passionate because of the fallacy of treating a single scenario as the end all scenario that defines the game past, present and future. Getting the Belt is the only thing that matters and nothing in the past or future will matter even if down the line the other player gets something else that will upset the balance for the first player in the process that is irrelevant.

[Nu]

Except the DMG clearly says that to use your discretion to give out items and that the table is just a suggestion and not a guideline at all. In fact you can't get a magic item till level 11th in a Low magic item campaign. You can just raise the level and nothing else if you are starting at a higher level, nothing in the book says that you have to give out magic items.

If using the suggestions gives you problems then don't use those suggestions and instead use your judgement. The DMG is full of suggestions that you can add, remove or modify as you see fit. Which is why the whole magic items being a problem is laughable because it is only a problem if the DM allows it to be.

Again, it is the only guideline given for starting players out beyond the first tier. You call it a suggestion, but it's the only one; if you choose to ignore it then you're on your own. And we cannot just cherry-pick the "low magic" side, because perhaps someone does want to run a high magic campaign but is concerned over the power level of some items over the others--if anything, it's more of a problem then, because magic items will be expected and more common but can possibly break the game (and no, that's not the point of magic items, at least not to everyone)! It's a perfectly legitimate discussion to figure out which magic items might be a problem and why they are a problem.


You can discuss the merits and flaws of anything but the option of not adding feats or magic items is not only valid but accepted and supported by the book. If something is a problem and omitting the item so the problem doesn't exist is a valid answer.

"If you don't like it, don't use it" is not an answer, it's a dismissal. It does not address any concerns raised or present any arguable points, it simply sidesteps the whole issue. It's not helpful and it's not relevant. It might as well be a troll response.

There's more to discuss here than "I don't like the item" or "I like the item", there's the whys and the impact the item has on the game and on a particular character, and the ideas of how it could be better handled and why it was handled the way it was. Frankly, to dismiss all of that with a simple "don't use it if you don't like it" is a tad insulting.

[Shaofoo]

Again, it is the only guideline given for starting players out beyond the first tier. You call it a suggestion, but it's the only one; if you choose to ignore it then you're on your own. And we cannot just cherry-pick the "low magic" side, because perhaps someone does want to run a high magic campaign but is concerned over the power level of some items over the others--if anything, it's more of a problem then, because magic items will be expected and more common but can possibly break the game (and no, that's not the point of magic items, at least not to everyone)! It's a perfectly legitimate discussion to figure out which magic items might be a problem and why they are a problem.

The DMG is a book full of suggestions and the book clearly says that it is a suggestion. Also the DMG came after the PHB so basically you were on your own before the DMG came around if you wanted a higher level character.

Also middle magic item games says to not give a magic item till level 11 either (you get two though) and you get a magic item at level 5 in a high level game. Also I would like to point out that just because you follow the guidelines you also have full control over what items to give your higher level players, the book doesn't say to give the DMG and have them flip through the pages. Even if you HAVE to give magic items you have full control over what magic items to give out, the player never has any agency unless you give that agency. Magic items might be expected but you are still the one in control.

You can discuss which items will cause a problem (and I did say that such stat up items DO cause problems) but if you are going to actually call it a strike against a game I will remind you that you are over exaggerating something that isn't a problem with the game until you actually put it into the game.


"If you don't like it, don't use it" is not an answer, it's a dismissal. It does not address any concerns raised or present any arguable points, it simply sidesteps the whole issue. It's not helpful and it's not relevant. It might as well be a troll response.

Well then, if you don't like it then why use it? Especially when the book says don't like it don't use it. It isn't my words it is what the book says. It isn't a troll response if the book basically says that unless you think the book is trolling you.


There's more to discuss here than "I don't like the item" or "I like the item", there's the whys and the impact the item has on the game and on a particular character, and the ideas of how it could be better handled and why it was handled the way it was. Frankly, to dismiss all of that with a simple "don't use it if you don't like it" is a tad insulting.

Right now the discussion seems to mostly stem of envy and what if another player gets jealous over someone else getting an item and supposedly invalidating their character . This seems to be less of a mechanics problem and more of a social problem. I don't think D&D can and should fix the problem of people getting envious over other people. Quite frankly I play D&D to have fun, not to have to live out an after school special on the importance of sharing, if removing magic items stops such problems then I am all for it. Maybe you have more tolerance than me about dealing with people so I congratulate you if that is true.

[Segev]

This is incorrect. It's not possible to determine whether or not boost strength is suboptimal until you first specify what you are optimizing to do. Someone optimizing for a different task will evaluate the choices differently.True! But it is fairly safe to assume that your goal is probably to be effective in your class and do more with what your class provides.

If you are changing that baseline assumption by optimizing for a totally different thing, then yes, the analysis must also change to reflect the new reward function.

I do believe "be better at what your class's main feature is" is a valid baseline assumption. And since we started by talking about strength items, "combat" seems a good focus.


You are subjectively worse off. It's not objective because there is no objective way to compare the value of a stat bonus versus a feat. All you can say is that one choice is less fun for you. That's certainly a valid opinion, but it is just an opinion. You're mistaking your subjectively preference for an objective superiority that simply doesn't exist.There are a number of objective ways. The one I am using may not be the "best," but it is definitely valid: you can take one or the other with the same resource. Unless you're stating that this aspect of the game is woefully unbalanced, such that you can say for certain that one choice or the other is, in a vacuum and independent of any other happenstance, obviously superior, then it must be assumed that the design intent was for the two to be roughly equivalent in value.

Therefore, if you can achieve the same end stat value AND have feats, you are better off than if you have just the end stat value. But if you can only have a stat value OR a feat, you're equally well-off regardless of which you choose.


Your argument is only valid if you don't particularly care whether you take a stat boost or a feat.And yet, if you care so much more about the stat boost, you actively are getting less out of it should you get the item in the future. By caring more, you've made the item that gives you what you want worth less.


If is doesn't make any difference to you whether you take a stat boost or a feat, why get upset that there's a small chance of getting a magic item that makes one of those choices better? If you do have a strong preference, then you're absolutely better off choosing that, regardless of whether or not certain items might someday appear. Otherwise, you're denying yourself the certainty of a large benefit now for a very small chance of the same benefit later.I've given the analysis of this already. But I will try to break your paragraph down case by case:

Case 1: You care about strength, invest strongly in strength, and do not get the item.
In this case, you have gotten the best strength you can (20)! Good for you.

Case 2: You care about strength, invest strongly in strength, and do get the item.
Well, on the up side, your strength is higher than it could otherwise be. On the down side, all that investment is somewhat wasted, as you could be just as strong without it. Still, you're strong, so at least you got what you want, even if you overpaid for it!

Case 3: You care about strength, invest strongly in feats, and do not get the item.
Woops. You're not as strong as you could be, which is disappointing. At least you've got some feats to make up for it; they will let you do some things strength-related better, at least (assuming you chose feats that were remotely complementary to your goal).

Case 4: You care about strength, invest strongly in feats, and do get the item.
Huzzah! You win the jackpot: you have all the strength you could possibly get, and you have feats to make it even better! (Again, assuming you chose feats to complement your goal.)

Case 5: You don't care about strength, invest strongly in strength, and do not get the item.
Well, you're very strong, as strong as you could be, but don't really care about that. You'd probably have been happier with feats.

Case 6: You don't care about strength, invest strongly in strength, and do get the item.
Woops. Not only have you wasted all the investment into strength, since this item overwrites it, but you're not even all that thrilled about the item. Definitely made the wrong build choice.

Case 7: You don't care about strength, invest strongly in feats, and do not get the item.
You got feats! And don't really care that you're not all that strong. Happy you!

Case 8: You don't care about strength, invest strongly in feats, and do get the item.
Jackpot here, too! You have the feats you want and strength you don't care much about, but hey, it's still nice!


Obviously, Cases 4 and 8 are the "jackpot" scenarios. Cases 3, 5 and 6 are "loser" scenarios. Case 2 is a mildly frustrating scenario. Cases 1 and 7 are acceptable.

The only unknown is whether or not you get the item. The choice is whether or not you invest in strength or feats.

Cases 1 & 2 are an "acceptable" and "mildly frustrating" scenario. Their analogues, Cases 3 and 4, are "loser" and "jackpot" scenarios. So, it seems that yes, if you particularly value strength, your conservative bet is to go with "invest strongly in strength." You will have acceptable to mildly frustrating results, and the mildly frustrating one is objectively no worse than the acceptable one.

Cases 5&6 are BOTH "loser" scenarios. Their analogues, Cases 7 and 8, are "jackpot" and acceptable scenarios.

If you do not PARTICULARLY value strength, then, you should always invest in feats, because you will always wind up in "loser" scenarios if you invest in strength, and wind up with either "acceptable" or "jackpot" if you invest in feats.

So, this seems like you're right; it's a matter of priorities. But it is telling, I think, that the most optimal choice if you particularly value strength is the one where actually getting the item that increases strength is "mildly frustrating" or just a wash with what you would have gotten if you hadn't invested in it.

That is why this is a flawed design model. If you build for what you value, and the item gives you what you value, the item actively invalidates your investment in it. I won't say you hope not to get it if you invest in strength, but you will wish you hadn't if you do get it. At least, if you appreciate the opportunity costs you paid at all.


People are passionate because of the fallacy of treating a single scenario as the end all scenario that defines the game past, present and future. Getting the Belt is the only thing that matters and nothing in the past or future will matter even if down the line the other player gets something else that will upset the balance for the first player in the process that is irrelevant.
This is a demonstrably incorrect analysis. As long as feats and strength (or whatever stat) are considered equally valuable, your ongoing utility as you pick one vs. the other is increasing the same either way, until you get the item. If you never get it, it's a wash. If you do get it, going feats suddenly yields a significantly higher utility function at the end, with no diminishment to the intermittent utilities.

This distorts if you strongly value strength. If you value strength sufficiently, it will be the optimal choice at each point you can pick it...unless and until you get the item. The utility function over time is harder to analyze, here, but the weird thing is that valuing strength makes the utility of GETTING the item worse, overall. This is...not a good thing.

[krugaan]

That was more providing a reason why people might be passionate about it. I personally love the items, as they're great for my off-stats!

Seriously. The case could be made for making all =19 items =17 instead, but the end result is still largely the same.

[Shaofoo]

This is a demonstrably incorrect analysis. As long as feats and strength (or whatever stat) are considered equally valuable, your ongoing utility as you pick one vs. the other is increasing the same either way, until you get the item. If you never get it, it's a wash. If you do get it, going feats suddenly yields a significantly higher utility function at the end, with no diminishment to the intermittent utilities.

You are committing a fallacy, your argument is over something that you as a player should never ever learn. Getting items should never be a concern because as a player you have no knowledge about such an event. You can have the item or you cannot, it is all moot because it isn't up to you whether the item exists in the first place and if the item doesn't exist then there is no problem at all.

If this is all a roundabout way of saying that the Belts are broken then just remove them from your mind and never deal with them in your games. There are items that are a hassle to deal with but the game never expects any magic items at all, if you put in a problematic magic item in your games you are the one to blame when problems arise.


This distorts if you strongly value strength. If you value strength sufficiently, it will be the optimal choice at each point you can pick it...unless and until you get the item. The utility function over time is harder to analyze, here, but the weird thing is that valuing strength makes the utility of GETTING the item worse, overall. This is...not a good thing.

And again this goes back to this being a social problem. If the player is going to belly ache because the item could've let him dump his str for feats that is a problem with the player not the game. I can just as easy say that a Polearm focused player is mad because the DM put a magic short sword instead of a magic polearm. Or that the fighter is mad because the DM put a magic shield as part of the loot.

There are a ton of magic items that the fighter either isn't optimal or may never use at all. And you never consider that maybe the fighter will get something down the line.

[Segev]

You are committing a fallacy, your argument is over something that you as a player should never ever learn. Getting items should never be a concern because as a player you have no knowledge about such an event. You can have the item or you cannot, it is all moot because it isn't up to you whether the item exists in the first place and if the item doesn't exist then there is no problem at all.

If this is all a roundabout way of saying that the Belts are broken then just remove them from your mind and never deal with them in your games. There are items that are a hassle to deal with but the game never expects any magic items at all, if you put in a problematic magic item in your games you are the one to blame when problems arise.



And again this goes back to this being a social problem. If the player is going to belly ache because the item could've let him dump his str for feats that is a problem with the player not the game. I can just as easy say that a Polearm focused player is mad because the DM put a magic short sword instead of a magic polearm. Or that the fighter is mad because the DM put a magic shield as part of the loot.

There are a ton of magic items that the fighter either isn't optimal or may never use at all. And you never consider that maybe the fighter will get something down the line.
All of this is no different than saying, "Well, if it's broken, don't play it," and "Don't complain that the game makes the optimal choice not the one you want to play."

It's not useful. It doesn't change that the design is poor. The only reason this is seeming so "big" in this thread is that people keep jumping all over me for daring to mention it's a problem that exists, and then telling me that it can't possibly exist because only bad munchkin roll-players with (implied) entitlement complexes would care.

The fact is that it is demonstrable through game theory analysis that these items do not reward what they seem to, but in fact reward the exact opposite. They punish what would be a natural assumption in your build procedure by either invalidating it or by giving better than what you worked for to somebody else.

You're right: DMs can choose to leave it out. And if the DM tells the players that they just won't exist from the beginning, that clears up any consideration one way or the other. If he leaves it vague, if it's a "maybe," then it still poses this problem.

It's not a game-ending problem. It's just a problem. A problem that could be solved with better design. Not all problems must be critical, game-wrecking problems to be worthy of considering how to design things to mitigate or avoid them.

[Shaofoo]

All of this is no different than saying, "Well, if it's broken, don't play it," and "Don't complain that the game makes the optimal choice not the one you want to play."

The first one is exactly what I am saying. The game doesn't expect you to use the items so it isn't a problem to ignore it.

And the second one should only matter if you ever care about the optimal choice, if you don't then that shouldn't be a problem. It is only a problem when the choice is the exact opposite of what you want it to happen (which it doesn't)



It's not useful. It doesn't change that the design is poor. The only reason this is seeming so "big" in this thread is that people keep jumping all over me for daring to mention it's a problem that exists, and then telling me that it can't possibly exist because only bad munchkin roll-players with (implied) entitlement complexes would care.

Like I said, it only exists when you put the item in play, otherwise all problems are null because they never existed. It is bad design but it isn't a problem since you can just as easily ignore it.

And yes I would argue that such players who care about minmaxing are the only ones affected and I wouldn't care if such players with entitlement issues are mad. Because you are making choices that at no point were guaranteed to you. You might as well say that you wish you were a paladin instead of a fighter so you can wield the Holy Avenger that you found.


The fact is that it is demonstrable through game theory analysis that these items do not reward what they seem to, but in fact reward the exact opposite. They punish what would be a natural assumption in your build procedure by either invalidating it or by giving better than what you worked for to somebody else.

And like I said, such think doesn't concern me because it is the thoughts of someone wanting to be the best above all others and if at one point they aren't the best then they would rather ragequit. And like I said it ignores the fact that maybe down the line they will get something that they can use. You might as well say that the Cleric wants to ragequit because the bard suddenly got a staff of healing and can now heal as well.
Also what is your consideration of cursed items, items with obvious downsides, do you consider a DM a bad DM if he gives you an item that actually was a negative instead of a positive.


You're right: DMs can choose to leave it out. And if the DM tells the players that they just won't exist from the beginning, that clears up any consideration one way or the other. If he leaves it vague, if it's a "maybe," then it still poses this problem.

Correction, the DM is under no obligation to tell their players what is or isn't in his game. A player should assume nothing is in the game until the DM tells them something is in the game. It is your fault if you have expectations for items that are never ever guaranteed.


It's not a game-ending problem. It's just a problem. A problem that could be solved with better design. Not all problems must be critical, game-wrecking problems to be worthy of considering how to design things to mitigate or avoid them.

It is only a problem when the item exists, if it doesn't then it isn't a problem and since as a DM you can easily say no to the item then if the item doesn't exist then it continues not being a problem. Besides like I said there are other items that exist that deal with stat up like the ioun stones so maybe your analysis is already resolved by the book itself instead of just trying to hammer on a problem that shouldn't exist if you don't want to deal with it.

[Segev]

In short, you agree that the item is a bad idea to include in games. Okay!

My additional point, moving on from there, is that having items which improve stats is cool. There should be ones that do not result in "broken, don't use it" as the conclusion.

As a refinement of what I was thinking before:

The wearer of Gauntlets of Ogre Strength has advantage on all Strength checks. If he would have advantage from another source on such a check, he may roll a third d20. If he uses the third d20 instead of one of the other two, he calculates his bonus as if he had Strength 19. He also has a minimum Strength of 19 for purposes of calculating static values.


That reduces the "overwritten" aspects to a barely-noticeable level and makes the item significant no matter who wears them.

The Belt of Hill Giant Strength would read "as Gauntlets of Ogre Strength, save they use a strength of 22," and the other kinds of Giant belts would similarly substitute different strength scores.

Same for any other relevant stat-up items.

[krugaan]

In short, you agree that the item is a bad idea to include in games. Okay!

My additional point, moving on from there, is that having items which improve stats is cool. There should be ones that do not result in "broken, don't use it" as the conclusion.

As a refinement of what I was thinking before:

The wearer of Gauntlets of Ogre Strength has advantage on all Strength checks. If he would have advantage from another source on such a check, he may roll a third d20. If he uses the third d20 instead of one of the other two, he calculates his bonus as if he had Strength 19. He also has a minimum Strength of 19 for purposes of calculating static values.


That reduces the "overwritten" aspects to a barely-noticeable level and makes the item significant no matter who wears them.

The Belt of Hill Giant Strength would read "as Gauntlets of Ogre Strength, save they use a strength of 22," and the other kinds of Giant belts would similarly substitute different strength scores.

Same for any other relevant stat-up items.

That's really very complicated for a magic item. 5E is about simplicity (for the most part). It's a neat idea though.

[Segev]

That's really very complicated for a magic item. 5E is about simplicity (for the most part). It's a neat idea though.

Hm. How about:

If you fail a Strength check for any reason while wearing Gauntlets of Ogre Strength, you may re-roll it, treating your Strength score as 19. You must take the new result. Your Strength is treated as no less than 19 for any static calculations.

Or reword that last bit for better "fit" with 5e vernacular; the idea being that 19 is a "floor" on your strength for static value purposes. (This would include any stat damage failing to bring you below 19. ...actually, is stat damage even still a thing in 5e?)

[krugaan]

Hm. How about:

If you fail a Strength check for any reason while wearing Gauntlets of Ogre Strength, you may re-roll it, treating your Strength score as 19. You must take the new result. Your Strength is treated as no less than 19 for any static calculations.

Or reword that last bit for better "fit" with 5e vernacular; the idea being that 19 is a "floor" on your strength for static value purposes. (This would include any stat damage failing to bring you below 19. ...actually, is stat damage even still a thing in 5e?)

or I dunno, just advantage on strength checks and +1 to hit and damage?

As mentioned before, the "set at 19" part is kind of iconic. Also, "static calculations" means involving stats?

[Segev]

As mentioned before, the "set at 19" part is kind of iconic.I agree; it is. Thematically, I like it. I'm trying to preserve it while at least mitigating the problem I spent the last several pages elaborating upon.


Also, "static calculations" means involving stats?Mostly relevant to strength, I think; I was thinking about things like "how much can you carry?" Though I suppose it'd be relevant for passive checks, too.

[CantigThimble]

Eh, I think a much better solution than either of those is just not giving the items to players unless they will be appreciated. Using 19 strength exclusively for non-combat things is just so lackluster and janky.

[Segev]

Eh, I think a much better solution than either of those is just not giving the items to players unless they will be appreciated. Using 19 strength exclusively for non-combat things is just so lackluster and janky.

You also use it as a fallback.

Though you're right, as I wrote it, it wouldn't apply to attack rolls and damage, and that's a problem. Woops. I'll give it more thought.

[Ruslan]

Gauntlets of Ogre Strength [requires attunement]
If you fail a Strength check or save, or miss with a Strength-based attack while wearing those gauntlets, you may expend a charge to reroll that check, save or attack. For the purpose of the new roll, treat your Strength score as 19.
Gauntlets of Ogre Strength have 4 charges, and regain 1d3 charges each day at dawn.

[Vogonjeltz]

Indeed. Why WOULD you boost strength? The optimal action is to never do so, except possibly as a side-consequence of a feat which also does so (if you want that feat's other features). It is bad design to create options where one is OBJECTIVELY worse than the other, especially if the reason it's worse is hidden behind another book and/or unknowns that you have to study more deeply to even appreciate the possibility of. These are known as "trap" options.

I guess I don't understand your position. Are you saying that the hope of a less than stat maximum boosting magic item is objectively better than having the maximum in your primary stat?

I mean...given that characters use their primary stat in virtually every game session more than anything else, and the item in question is incapable of helping the character to maximize their potential...you're objectively wrong about this claim.

The idea of trap options isn't accurate in that magic items aren't options. You don't get to choose what magic items the party finds, it's random. There is no choice involved. As such, I think you've seriously misjudged the purpose of stat 19 items. You might want to consider re-aligning your expectations to fit the situation, rather than railing against the situation for not fitting your expectations.

[georgie_leech]

or I dunno, just advantage on strength checks and +1 to hit and damage?

As mentioned before, the "set at 19" part is kind of iconic. Also, "static calculations" means involving stats?

Worth noting that in the edition that set the stats to specific values, you had considerably less control over what your stats were and changing them in game wasn't a guarantee; you didn't gain Ability Scores just for leveling like you do now. I other words, Gauntlets of Ogre Power were one of the primary ways to invest in STR in the first place, rather than competing with standard level ups.

[JoeJ]

True! But it is fairly safe to assume that your goal is probably to be effective in your class and do more with what your class provides.

If you are changing that baseline assumption by optimizing for a totally different thing, then yes, the analysis must also change to reflect the new reward function.

I do believe "be better at what your class's main feature is" is a valid baseline assumption. And since we started by talking about strength items, "combat" seems a good focus.

Sorry, but no. "Being better at your class's main feature" is far, far too broad to be a meaningful optimization target. The number of definitions of what it means to be "best" at a class's main feature approaches infinity. Being better at doing damage to targets with low AC and high hp is an example of a useful optimization target. Or being better at tripping. Or better at sneaking. Or better at casting damaging spells that have attack rolls.


TThere are a number of objective ways. The one I am using may not be the "best," but it is definitely valid: you can take one or the other with the same resource. Unless you're stating that this aspect of the game is woefully unbalanced, such that you can say for certain that one choice or the other is, in a vacuum and independent of any other happenstance, obviously superior, then it must be assumed that the design intent was for the two to be roughly equivalent in value.

That's meaningless. In a vacuum and independent of any other happenstance, neither the stat boost nor the feat has any value whatsoever. Each is only good for doing specific things; how valuable they are depends on how badly you want to do those things.


TTherefore, if you can achieve the same end stat value AND have feats, you are better off than if you have just the end stat value. But if you can only have a stat value OR a feat, you're equally well-off regardless of which you choose.

That's true only if all you care about is your character's stats at the moment the campaign ends. If what you want is to play the strong character, then you're absolutely not better off taking the feats, whether you eventually get a >20 item or not.


TAnd yet, if you care so much more about the stat boost, you actively are getting less out of it should you get the item in the future. By caring more, you've made the item that gives you what you want worth less.
<snip for length>


The difficulty with your analysis is that it only looks at endpoints. If you value strength, build for feats, and end up getting a Belt of Strength, that's not a jackpot. That's completely sub-optimal because you wasted all those levels not being strong.

You're also ignoring the possibility that the choices you make might influence what magic items you find. As a DM, I would be far more likely to give a Belt of Giant Strength to a character who was already building for strength and having fun being the strongest character in the room, because that's the kind of character they appear to want to play.


TThis is a demonstrably incorrect analysis. As long as feats and strength (or whatever stat) are considered equally valuable, your ongoing utility as you pick one vs. the other is increasing the same either way, until you get the item. If you never get it, it's a wash. If you do get it, going feats suddenly yields a significantly higher utility function at the end, with no diminishment to the intermittent utilities.

No. Your analysis is incorrect because you're taking a choice that is supposed to be balanced on average and assuming it's equally balanced for any specific case.


This distorts if you strongly value strength. If you value strength sufficiently, it will be the optimal choice at each point you can pick it...unless and until you get the item. The utility function over time is harder to analyze, here, but the weird thing is that valuing strength makes the utility of GETTING the item worse, overall. This is...not a good thing.

I think we're just going to have to disagree here.

[georgie_leech]

I think we're just going to have to disagree here.

As a comparison, who gets more out of a theoretical item that gives you access to the spellcasting ability of a Level 17 Wizard if you don't already have that: a level 1 Wizard, or a Level 15?

[Shaofoo]

Quite frankly just copy the effect of the Ioun Stone of Strength.

Gauntlets of Ogre Power - Your Strength Score is increased by 2 up to a max of 20 while you are wearing the gauntlets.

It might not be unique but it is sure much more balanced. Nothing says that you can't have the 3.x version of stat items in your 5e games complete with restrictions to obey the stat cap as well. You can have the belts just give higher bonuses and even some breaking the stat barrier but not beyond 23 (So we don't step on a Barbarian's toes)

[endur]

The set stat to 19 items are for people who don't have a good score in that stat. If you had Gauntlets of Ogre Power, you'd give them to the cleric or thief who might need to hit in melee and cannot have 18/00 Str, rather than the brute of a fighter who only managed 18/77. That's because that fighter wants the gloves of dexterity. So for 5e, the Gauntlets are good for anyone that doesn't normally have room for good Strength.

As a 5e barbarian player who played an AD&D fighter-type in the 1980's, I disagree.

In AD&D, (assuming non-computer game where the player runs only one character), an 18/77 fighter would definitely want the gauntlets if a belt is not available. 18/77 was +2/+4, 18/00 was +3/+6. A +1 to hit and +2 to damage in AD&D was HUGE. There was no weapon specialization. The only way you increased damage was via magic items (swords, etc.) and strength. Also very few buff spells existed back then. Gloves of dex were nice for defense and archery, but a strong offense has always been preferable to defense in D&D.

Also, the gauntlets increased your odds of performing the fighter task of opening doors, bending bars, etc, even allowing a chance to open doors that were sealed by a Hold Portal or Wizard Lock spell.

In 5e, my 7th level Str 16 barbarian has the gauntlets. When I increase my str to 18, I will give the gauntlets to someone else ... but until then, the gauntlets are definitely useful.

In an AD&D computer game like Baldur's Gate, I would definitely give the Gauntlets of Ogre Power to the cleric... The cleric can't get 18/00 strength without the gauntlets (only fighter types get 18 percentile strength).

[MeeposFire]

As a 5e barbarian player who played an AD&D fighter-type in the 1980's, I disagree.

In AD&D, (assuming non-computer game where the player runs only one character), an 18/77 fighter would definitely want the gauntlets if a belt is not available. 18/77 was +2/+4, 18/00 was +3/+6. A +1 to hit and +2 to damage in AD&D was HUGE. There was no weapon specialization. The only way you increased damage was via magic items (swords, etc.) and strength. Also very few buff spells existed back then. Gloves of dex were nice for defense and archery, but a strong offense has always been preferable to defense in D&D.

Also, the gauntlets increased your odds of performing the fighter task of opening doors, bending bars, etc, even allowing a chance to open doors that were sealed by a Hold Portal or Wizard Lock spell.

In 5e, my 7th level Str 16 barbarian has the gauntlets. When I increase my str to 18, I will give the gauntlets to someone else ... but until then, the gauntlets are definitely useful.

In an AD&D computer game like Baldur's Gate, I would definitely give the Gauntlets of Ogre Power to the cleric... The cleric can't get 18/00 strength without the gauntlets (only fighter types get 18 percentile strength).

You must have only used the older 1e books because weapon specialization was introduced in 1e along with classes like the barbarian. I also would think it strange to say that there were few buff spells as I remember a lot of them especially self buffs on the cleric side.

That being said the important thing I think you are saying I believe I agree with.

Your example of baldurs gate is true too. If I go low str with a character then I really want to use the gauntlets of ogre power. If I had high str I did not need and I would give them to a different character but my high str character would benefit because he could use gauntlets of weapon expertise which gives me bonuses that stack with all my other bonuses.

[krugaan]

Quite frankly just copy the effect of the Ioun Stone of Strength.

Gauntlets of Ogre Power - Your Strength Score is increased by 2 up to a max of 20 while you are wearing the gauntlets.

It might not be unique but it is sure much more balanced. Nothing says that you can't have the 3.x version of stat items in your 5e games complete with restrictions to obey the stat cap as well. You can have the belts just give higher bonuses and even some breaking the stat barrier but not beyond 23 (So we don't step on a Barbarian's toes)

How about:

Sets your Str 19. If your natural Str is 19+, it adds +2 str.

Some benefit to high str characters, same benefit to low str characters, functionally different from other magical items, and simple.

[Shaofoo]

How about:

Sets your Str 19. If your natural Str is 19+, it adds +2 str.

Some benefit to high str characters, same benefit to low str characters, functionally different from other magical items, and simple.

This makes the item even more broken.

The point isn't to make the item usable for everyone the point is to make the item not supposedly invalidate choices that other players make. Basically the set to 19 has to go and never be used at all no matter what.

Like I said, not all items should be useable or optimal for everyone. D&D is a group game so unless everyone is a Str based character there is probably some character who can use it to good effect even if it is to get better skill checks. Like I said a lot of people seem to stem from the premise that the Gauntlets is the only item to be given to the group and that nothing that can happen in the future. Basically the Fighter should just give the Gauntlets to someone else and just wait for the next item drop to be more agreeable to him, or just try to sell or barter with the gauntlets.

[JoeJ]

As a comparison, who gets more out of a theoretical item that gives you access to the spellcasting ability of a Level 17 Wizard if you don't already have that: a level 1 Wizard, or a Level 15?

For that (totally not broken) item, the analogous question would be, who gets more out of it: a 15th level wizard or a 15th level barbarian who has little or no desire to cast spells?

[CantigThimble]

For that (totally not broken) item, the analogous question would be, who gets more out of it: a 15th level wizard or a 15th level barbarian who has little or no desire to cast spells?

The answer is still very clearly the 15th level barbarian unless he has an extreme magic allergy.

[JoeJ]

The answer is still very clearly the 15th level barbarian unless he has an extreme magic allergy.

The wizard gets a "Wow! Awesome!" and the barbarian gets a "Meh, I'll see if I can sell it in town." How is that better?

[CantigThimble]

The wizard gets a "Wow! Awesome!" and the barbarian gets a "Meh, I'll see if I can sell it in town." How is that better?

Are you kidding?
-Foresight.
-Fly when you needs it
-Shield & Haste when you're not spending a rage
-Cone of Cold when you're faced by large numbers
-Teleportation
-Fabricate fortifications

There are so many situations in which being really strong and hitting something in melee can't solve the problem that the item would allow him to deal with.

If the wizard takes the item then the net gain for the party is what, 1 spell slot per day? If the barbarian takes it the party gains 19 spell slots every day!

[georgie_leech]

For that (totally not broken) item, the analogous question would be, who gets more out of it: a 15th level wizard or a 15th level barbarian who has little or no desire to cast spells?

The point was never that it wasn't a horribly broken item, the point was an illustration of what people saying the item is objectively better means. It is objectively better for the Barbarian, even if they don't want it. The Barbarian would objectively get a much bigger boost in capabilities from it. I'm not one for claiming that everyone must always make the objectively better choice every time, just trying to explain what that means.

[JoeJ]

The point was never that it wasn't a horribly broken item, the point was an illustration of what people saying the item is objectively better means. It is objectively better for the Barbarian, even if they don't want it. The Barbarian would objectively get a much bigger boost in capabilities from it. I'm not one for claiming that everyone must always make the objectively better choice every time, just trying to explain what that means.

That's not objectively better, though; it's objectively different. It's only better if the player wants to be different in that way. If you don't want something, then they're not better off for having it, regardless of what abilities it does or does not offer. Utility is always subjective.

[Segev]

That's not objectively better, though; it's objectively different. It's only better if the player wants to be different in that way. If you don't want something, then they're not better off for having it, regardless of what abilities it does or does not offer. Utility is always subjective.

It is objectively mechanically better. To claim otherwise is wishful thinking. "I want it not to be better, so it isn't," is not an argument worth considering.

[CantigThimble]

That's not objectively better, though; it's objectively different. It's only better if the player wants to be different in that way. If you don't want something, then they're not better off for having it, regardless of what abilities it does or does not offer. Utility is always subjective.

We're not saying that you should base all of your decisions on the objective power that particular options give you, we're saying that objective power gain exists whether you base your decisions on it or not.

If a fighter has a nonmagical longsword and he finds a +1 longsword, swapping the two makes him objectively more powerful than if he did not swap them. If he wants to keep his non-magical sword for reasons other than objective power gain then he can, I'm not saying that's wrong, but you cannot deny that he would be objectively more powerful if he used the +1 longsword instead of the non-magical one.

Utility is also objective in many cases. Preparing Water Walk and Fly objectively gives you more utility than preparing Water walk and leaving a spell slot empty. Having an option is objectively better than not having that option.

Again, I'm not saying that you should base all your decisions on objective standards but the fact that you prefer to use subjective standards does not mean objective standards don't exist or matter.

[JoeJ]

It is objectively mechanically better. To claim otherwise is wishful thinking. "I want it not to be better, so it isn't," is not an argument worth considering.

No it isn't. "Better" is a value statement; it's inherently subjective. Nothing can be rated as better than anything else except through somebody's subjective preference for it. Not even an individual's own life (because they may want to die, or somebody else might want them to die).

[JoeJ]

If the wizard takes the item then the net gain for the party is what, 1 spell slot per day? If the barbarian takes it the party gains 19 spell slots every day!

If the barbarian uses it, the net loss is that neither that player nor the wizard's player get to play the character they most want to. By optimizing spell slots, you're reducing player agency. You might prefer that trade-off, but it's not objectively better.

[CantigThimble]

No it isn't. "Better" is a value statement; it's inherently subjective. Nothing can be rated as better than anything else except through somebody's subjective preference for it. Not even an individual's own life (because they may want to die, or somebody else might want them to die).

We are not using 'better' in every possible sense of the word. We are using it in reference to in game power and options. One is objectively a higher number than two, subjective opinions are not involved here. Two is objectively a higher number than one, subjective opinions are not involved here.

Edit: IGNORE THE PURE IDIOCY!

[JoeJ]

We are not using 'better' in every possible sense of the word. We are using it in reference to in game power and options. One is objectively a higher number than two, subjective opinions are not involved here. Two is objectively a higher number than one, subjective opinions are not involved here.

Edit: IGNORE THE PURE IDIOCY!

No question about that. But if your argument is that such-and-such an item is badly designed because 2 > 1, then you're missing some steps. Like: this item gives us a 1 instead of a 2, but my friends and I all like high numbers and 2 > 1. Then you can say the item is badly designed for what you and your friends want in your game (but leaving open the possibility that it's a good item for somebody else who prefers low numbers in their game).

[georgie_leech]

No question about that. But if your argument is that such-and-such an item is badly designed because 2 > 1, then you're missing some steps. Like: this item gives us a 1 instead of a 2, but my friends and I all like high numbers and 2 > 1. Then you can say the item is badly designed for what you and your friends want in your game (but leaving open the possibility that it's a good item for somebody else who prefers low numbers in their game).

This item is badly designed because the characters it gives the greatest power boost to generally don't care much about it, and the 'boost' it gives to the characters that are interested in what it improves will generally have greater abilities anyway, or if they don't, it invalidates any investment they've already made in a way that offers little to no way to recoup what they've spent.

[Mara]

This.

And on a side note, does anyone else here think that these types of items are out of place in 5e? Especially the more powerful ones like Belt of Giant's strength. 21-29 strength is alot. If you were to go on the extreme and say 29.... That is the equivalent of +4 to attack and damage rolls even if you had a 20 in the stat previously. If you had a 16 strength, that is like equipping a +6 weapon (with the added effect of increase str saves / checks / skills).

On top of that, this item makes many strength builds less powerful in my eyes because a character can pump dex and dump str with little to no consequence already. now add in even the small possibility of getting an item like this and instantly they have a strength higher than almost anything in the game. Even the weakest ones are strong like this, but to a lesser extent. Belt of Hill Giant's strength is 21 and Gauntlets of Ogre power being 19 are both huge bonuses to someone who dumped strength. Enough to make a strength build while being a full dex character.

Edit: Just thought i'd add a little thought to an otherwise bland 1 question thread =P

I think these items set the tone for 5e. Tone being: "All your carefully laid optimization can become irrelevant with a random item drop"

The difference between an 8 and a 20 is +6. A belt and a weapon can be worth +7 to +13.

The build wars just don't really matter.

[JoeJ]

This item is badly designed because the characters it gives the greatest power boost to generally don't care much about it, and the 'boost' it gives to the characters that are interested in what it improves will generally have greater abilities anyway, or if they don't, it invalidates any investment they've already made in a way that offers little to no way to recoup what they've spent.

Thank you. In other words, it's badly designed because it isn't a good fit for the way your table likes to play D&D.

[Shaofoo]

I think these items set the tone for 5e. Tone being: "All your carefully laid optimization can become irrelevant with a random item drop"

The difference between an 8 and a 20 is +6. A belt and a weapon can be worth +7 to +13.

The build wars just don't really matter.

That's being melodramatic.

Magic items do not set the tone for 5e because they are optional and completely controlled by the DM. The standard is no magic items even.

Also again your tone is again the problem of the jealous player which isn't a problem with the game and more of a problem with the player itself. Your build isn't irrelevant because your build isn't affected, you are as effective before and after the item drop. If you are mad because at one point a guy with the magic item might (and keyword is might because it isn't even proven beyond ridiculous corner cases) be better then that is your problem because you choose to lay your bed in the moment and not see what will happen down the line, instead choosing to rage quit on the spot.

Build wars are stupid but builds matter because players make the builds, players do not dictate magic item drops. DMs do not dictate builds but do dictate magic item drops (and they can dictate to not drop any magic items). A Wizard with Gauntlets will not out melee a Fighter.

The Gauntlets and Belts are a problem because they break the paradigm of not messing with the stats. That is why we don't have stat damage anymore, so we don't have to recalculate a ton of stuff that might go up and down at will. It is better to say you have a disadvantage on Strength checks and attacks than saying you take Strength damage. And the Belts break the stat cap as well but so do the books and those stack up to infinity technically. The items violate this but like magic items I know that they aren't a problem because a DM can choose not to include them and a player cannot request or demand their inclusion in any way.

So yeah builds still matter just because you are never promised any magic items. You can choose to make your build hinge on getting a specific magic item but don't bellyache when said item does not drop.

[Mara]

That's being melodramatic.

Magic items do not set the tone for 5e because they are optional and completely controlled by the DM. The standard is no magic items even.

Also again your tone is again the problem of the jealous player which isn't a problem with the game and more of a problem with the player itself. Your build isn't irrelevant because your build isn't affected, you are as effective before and after the item drop. If you are mad because at one point a guy with the magic item might (and keyword is might because it isn't even proven beyond ridiculous corner cases) be better then that is your problem because you choose to lay your bed in the moment and not see what will happen down the line, instead choosing to rage quit on the spot.

Build wars are stupid but builds matter because players make the builds, players do not dictate magic item drops. DMs do not dictate builds but do dictate magic item drops (and they can dictate to not drop any magic items). A Wizard with Gauntlets will not out melee a Fighter.

The Gauntlets and Belts are a problem because they break the paradigm of not messing with the stats. That is why we don't have stat damage anymore, so we don't have to recalculate a ton of stuff that might go up and down at will. It is better to say you have a disadvantage on Strength checks and attacks than saying you take Strength damage. And the Belts break the stat cap as well but so do the books and those stack up to infinity technically. The items violate this but like magic items I know that they aren't a problem because a DM can choose not to include them and a player cannot request or demand their inclusion in any way.

So yeah builds still matter just because you are never promised any magic items. You can choose to make your build hinge on getting a specific magic item but don't bellyache when said item does not drop.

You misinterpret me. Build wars don't matter because luck is always a heavy factor. Whether that be through loot drops or rolling high or low on the d20.

This isn't 3.5 or PF where at some point the d20 stops mattering. Unoptimized builds could easily out perform optimized builds at their targeted function. Your tank fighter could have less AC than a rogue with magic light armor. That same tank fighter can out damage a GWM barbar because he has a magic sword and a belt. Or vice versa, mobs could roll low vs the tank fighter and not the rogue. The tank fighter could roll low on attack rolls compared to the GWM barbar.

Your best laid builds can always be smashed to little pieces by shifts in luck or DM rulings. Your most awful build could end up amazing for the same reasons.

[Shaofoo]

You misinterpret me. Build wars don't matter because luck is always a heavy factor. Whether that be through loot drops or rolling high or low on the d20.

This isn't 3.5 or PF where at some point the d20 stops mattering. Unoptimized builds could easily out perform optimized builds at their targeted function. Your tank fighter could have less AC than a rogue with magic light armor. That same tank fighter can out damage a GWM barbar because he has a magic sword and a belt. Or vice versa, mobs could roll low vs the tank fighter and not the rogue. The tank fighter could roll low on attack rolls compared to the GWM barbar.

Your best laid builds can always be smashed to little pieces by shifts in luck or DM rulings. Your most awful build could end up amazing for the same reasons.

First I do not subscribe to magic item luck at all. If the DM wants to roll for random loot that is his choice but he isn't expected to do so. Even if he rolls for loot with the tables presented he can just as easily reroll it till he get something that he wants to drop, or even just pick an item himself. At no point does the game ever force the DM to drop an item against his will.

And again the players complaining that their damage or tanking isn't top tier anymore in the group is a player problem and not a game problem. Unless the belt and magic items siphons stats from other players the efficiency is always the same. You deal 100 DPR before the magic items dropped for your friend and you will still deal 100 DPR afterwards, that your friend deals 120 DPR is irrelevant because you still deal 100 DPR. If you have a problem with that then either talk to the DM or leave the table.

Also analysis always stem from a presented average, not from the edge cases. A person that always rolls a 1 is an anomaly that should never be realistically considered at all, it'd be like trying to plan your life around the chance that you'll hit the Powerball next week. In discussions there is a middle ground that is agreed upon and if you can't choose some sort of agreed upon option then there can't be a discussion at all. So an optimized build to a person that always rolls a 1 vs an unoptimized build around a player that always rolls a 20 is useless for discussion. Yes luck can ruin things but that is expected and luck can also save you as well, it is give and take here.

Basically if you are so worried about the dice and variance then D&D isn't your kind of game.

[Segev]

No it isn't. "Better" is a value statement; it's inherently subjective. Nothing can be rated as better than anything else except through somebody's subjective preference for it. Not even an individual's own life (because they may want to die, or somebody else might want them to die).

In a trivial sense, you're right. It is, in fact, impossible to even say that hitting somebody in combat is better than missing them, or that your character surviving combat is better than it dying, if the player in question has priorities skewed far enough from what is the normal expected set of desires and goals of one playing the game.

If you are falling back on this stance, though, you're shifting the goalposts. "I like playing things that are well outside the norm, so obviously this mechanic is just fine because it caters to my niche preference." "3.5e monks are fine because I like being less effective than any other build," is also a true statement, for people who like that sort of thing. I would dare you to go make that case in the 3.5 forum, except I think even daring somebody to set up what would be viewed as a troll thread is against forum rules.

[Shaofoo]

"3.5e monks are fine because I like being less effective than any other build," is also a true statement.

Sure if you subscribe to the Stormwind Fallacy this is true, the best role player is the worst character ever mechanically.

[georgie_leech]

Thank you. In other words, it's badly designed because it isn't a good fit for the way your table likes to play D&D.

I think 'does this item boost the things I care about?' is pretty universal as metrics go. There are three possible general states. You care a lot about STR, in which case this item doesn't help despite in theory being an item for boosting STR. You can not care about STR, which is the group that gets the biggest boost from this item despite them not caring about it. Finally, you have those who care a little about STR but not enough to invest in it otherwise, who do get some use out of the gauntlets, but are generally more interested in other things. Compare with a magic sword of some bonus: the people who care about accuracy and damage get a boost they like, the people that don't care don't get a disproportionate boost out of it, and it remains a nice side bonus for those who care a little. That is poor design, like the prize for a contest for vegans being a life supply of bacon.

[Laserlight]

Are Girdles of Giant strength and Gauntlets of Ogre power 'out of place' in 5E?

I saw that as "Girdles of Gnat Strength". This is how we get cursed items...

[Sitri]

This seems like one of the items I wouldn't introduce until all characters are sporting 3 attuned items they like.

By that point, people aren't essentially dumping a stat they want and there is an opportunity cost to shoring up a secondary stat.

[coredump]

This item is badly designed because the characters it gives the greatest power boost to generally don't care much about it, and the 'boost' it gives to the characters that are interested in what it improves will generally have greater abilities anyway, or if they don't, it invalidates any investment they've already made in a way that offers little to no way to recoup what they've spent.

What you call a flaw, others call a feature. It is more of a 'balancing' item. It has an upper limit, it doesn't allow folks to get into the stratosphere with stats.

Of course it is bigger boost for some than others.... why do you assume that is a bad thing? The 23 Str may still be better for the Str 20 ftr than the Str 17 fighter....depends on a few other factors.


But we make decisions like this all the time. Your fighter uses great sword.... and you found a +2 shield, oh noes!! Your decisions mean that item isn't very good for you.

This is meant to be a role playing game, which means you play characters as they experience adventures, righting wrongs (or wronging rights), finding treasure and magic. It is supposed to be an organic growth.... kind of like life... We just played LMoP, and almost all of the items were fairly useless to the entire party. (not a single Str based PC in the group, and no wiz/war/sorc) But that how 'life' should be, sometimes you find exactly what you would hope, and sometimes you don't. When the items isn't the exact thing you wished for as a little boy, you pull up your big boy pants and you move on.
You made a choice to up your Str.... you still get the advantage of having that increased str. You just made the *choice* to take the str and not take the *risk* of finding or not finding a Str 23 belt. Maybe the other fighter did take that risk....with risk comes reward..... and sometimes failure.
There is no need to be butthurt just because you want to never have to deal with a risk that might not get you everything you want.

EDIT: By the end, I am no longer addressing G_L personally, but the issue in general....

[coredump]

First I do not subscribe to magic item luck at all. If the DM wants to roll for random loot that is his choice but he isn't expected to do so. Even if he rolls for loot with the tables presented he can just as easily reroll it till he get something that he wants to drop, or even just pick an item himself. At no point does the game ever force the DM to drop an item against his will.

Basically if you are so worried about the dice and variance then D&D isn't your kind of game.

Hey Shaofoo.... I may be wrong, but I really think that Mara agrees with you about the items and their role in the game. I just think she is presenting it in a more 'flippant' way, which may not be communicating with you well.

I don't think she feels the dice an variance is a bad thing..... (even if the DM just picks the items)..... its a matter of the 'game' not being overly concerned with some involved 'life plan' of optimizations.....

[georgie_leech]

The difference being, a character wielding a Greatsword has chosen to focus on offense over defence. A +2 shield does exactly what it should: it boosts defence for those who care about it. I have far less problem with the >20 STR items in this regard, as they're at least an item that boosts the people it should. My problem is that the fact that Gauntlets are a STR boost for those that care less about it and do nothing for characters actually looking to increased STR over the course of the game.

[ad_hoc]

Finally, you have those who care a little about STR but not enough to invest in it otherwise, who do get some use out of the gauntlets, but are generally more interested in other things.

The thing is, you are no longer using your WBL to acquire them.

They are an extra. You could have not found anything in that treasure hoard.

[Shaofoo]

Hey Shaofoo.... I may be wrong, but I really think that Mara agrees with you about the items and their role in the game. I just think she is presenting it in a more 'flippant' way, which may not be communicating with you well.

I don't think she feels the dice an variance is a bad thing..... (even if the DM just picks the items)..... its a matter of the 'game' not being overly concerned with some involved 'life plan' of optimizations.....

The role of magic items is whatever the DM wants them to be and only the DM. They can be given to directly help or hinder the player or they can be nothing more than fluff but it is up to the Dm to decide.The game is not concerned period about the player when it comes to magic items, the player has zero recourse and agency to get magic items. If the DM doesn't want magic items then there will not be any magic items even if the player begs and moans and scours through the PHB for any answer, and the player only has the PHB because the DMG and the MM are DM books only and whatever is in the books can be added, removed or modified by the Dm as he sees fit so you can't use the books as a recourse either.

The player expecting the Gauntlets to drop is illogical because at no point does the game tell him that such an item will drop. The only way the player knows is if the Dm tells him and even then it might not be what he expects (Gauntlets can have +x instead of set to 19, nothing says that the Dm can't change items, or even do something different).

[Segev]

Those focusing on the fact that the set-at-X items have a tendency to be of LESS interest the MORE you focus on the very thing they grant, which is backwards to every other item designed to aid in an area of focus, have the best explanation of the problem, I think.

[Shaofoo]

Those focusing on the fact that the set-at-X items have a tendency to be of LESS interest the MORE you focus on the very thing they grant, which is backwards to every other item designed to aid in an area of focus, have the best explanation of the problem, I think.

Unless you count the belts which is the only way to break the strength cap anyway unless you are a Barbarian 20 and even then there are belts that break that cap as well.

But there isn't a problem, a magic item isn't held to any specific design or has to follow any set parameters. That you like it less the more stats you have is irrelevant, just because it gives strength doesn't mean that you have to give it to the high strength guy always. A party can give the item to someone with low strength and instead wait for some other item that the high strength person could use instead. The problem is that somehow people have the mind that the Gauntlets has to be useful to everyone regardless even though there are a ton of magic items that are not only prohibited to be used if not by a specific class but also useless unless you are of a certain niche.

The problem stems from taking a fully individualistic point of view in a game that is all about group play, if all you care about is forcing the gauntlets into the high strength guy then you will see a problem that can be just as easily solved by thinking of others. If you want to change the gauntlets so that your vision can be achieved of homogeneous usability then go for it but that isn't solving a problem but just making things the way you want them to be, which is what D&D says you should do. If you don't like something then change it is the modus operandi of the game that a lot of people seem to miss.

[Segev]

"There is no problem, because magic items don't actually have to do what they're intended to do, because what they're intended to do isn't what they're intended to do if the DM doesn't say so."

Oberoni through and through, and really not a useful place to have a discussion from. By this logic, there is never any problem with any rule in any game, because obviously that was an optional part of the game the DM can leave out if it doesn't work.

Add in the persistent insinuation that anybody who disagrees is some sort of awful person for daring to think about the consequences of these items' potential, and we also learn that caring about how you spend your build resources is a moral failing.

[pwykersotz]

Those focusing on the fact that the set-at-X items have a tendency to be of LESS interest the MORE you focus on the very thing they grant, which is backwards to every other item designed to aid in an area of focus, have the best explanation of the problem, I think.

I think this argument is a very interesting one. I don't think it's quite true. If you get a Brazier of Commanding Fire Elementals (I think that's its name), is it of more use to the one who can or cannot cast that spell?

If you get a Wand of Cure Wounds, is it more useful to the Cleric or to the Sorcerer?

Any magical item which replicates something that can be gotten in a different way invalidates that way of getting it to either a small or large degree. You might argue that the gauntlets are the chief offender, but I don't think they are backwards compared to other items.

[Segev]

I think this argument is a very interesting one. I don't think it's quite true. If you get a Brazier of Commanding Fire Elementals (I think that's its name), is it of more use to the one who can or cannot cast that spell?

If you get a Wand of Cure Wounds, is it more useful to the Cleric or to the Sorcerer?If the Belt of Storm Giant Strength required you to already have a 20 Strength to even wear it in the first place, and THEN it advanced your strength to 29 or whatever it gives you in 5e (I don't have a DMG to look this up in), your analogies would hold, and it actually would make having built towards strength be rewarded with higher strength.

Your analogies don't hold because these items do require you to have the spell in question.

Unless this changed in 5e. In which case, YES, the brazier is actually better for the non-caster, and the wand is better for the non-cleric. Notably, these items do not do anything BETTER than somebody who's devoted resources towards these things can, and they also provide limited but additional uses of abilities (at least the wand does). They do NOT invalidate having built towards them by saying, "You now have more from this item than you will ever get from your character resources; pity you didn't invest them elsewhere so you wouldn't have wasted them on something this item just does better."

Any magical item which replicates something that can be gotten in a different way invalidates that way of getting it to either a small or large degree. You might argue that the gauntlets are the chief offender, but I don't think they are backwards compared to other items.They ARE, though. The difference is that the other examples you list? They don't make it so that your investment is literally overwritten. Or, if they do? They're not even CLOSE to as good as what real investment would get you.

Few clerics will complain if the rogue can also cure wounds from a wand; the cleric's still better at it. Moreover, the cure wounds wand isn't giving the rogue near-pinnacle capability with healing, and even if the cleric has it, it's not making the cleric's own spells useless. It's increasing how often he can do it at all.

The Gauntlets of Ogre Power and Belts of Giant Strength make your own investment in strength truly irrelevant, if you get any benefit from them at all. They represent - at least the belts do - the only way to achieve a strength greater than 20, and so now whoever has invested towards maximizing strength, in order to have the highest strength possible, has WASTED that investment if he can actually achieve higher strength.

To put this in context, the argument has been made that a DM just shouldn't include these items if they'll invalidate a player's choices. Which means a DM shouldn't include a Belt of Giant Strength if there's a character in the game who's worked towards being as strong as possible. He should only do so if the characters just don't care about strength all that much.

Yeah, that makes sense. The items that push you over the top in strength are only meant to be used in games where the PC reactions will be, "Oh, that's nice, but we are all dex builds?"

[SharkForce]

having natural strength isn't useless even if you have the item (though that is a bit less true now that it's a "belt" rather than a "girdle"... i can't imagine sleeping in a girdle is remotely comfortable, while belt doesn't imply nearly the same level of discomfort).

any time there is an antimagic effect (rare, but not unheard of - for example, you could be fighting a beholder), you'll be glad you have natural strength. any time you're captured by people that aren't too stupid to take away your gear, you'll be glad you have natural strength. any time you can't bring magic items somewhere (a bit situational, but again, not unheard of) you'll be glad you have natural strength.

some of those situations are pretty rare. some are not rare at all. and the odds are pretty good that the person most capable of taking advantage of a high strength score is also the person who was investing in strength already anyways, unless you're allowing people to buy whatever items they want...

in which case, once again, the guy with natural high strength has the advantage of being able to spend all that gold elsewhere. like being able to fly, or turn invisible, or grow to huge size, or whatever else they might feel the need for.

[pwykersotz]

If the Belt of Storm Giant Strength required you to already have a 20 Strength to even wear it in the first place, and THEN it advanced your strength to 29 or whatever it gives you in 5e (I don't have a DMG to look this up in), your analogies would hold, and it actually would make having built towards strength be rewarded with higher strength.

Your analogies don't hold because these items do require you to have the spell in question.

Unless this changed in 5e. In which case, YES, the brazier is actually better for the non-caster, and the wand is better for the non-cleric. Notably, these items do not do anything BETTER than somebody who's devoted resources towards these things can, and they also provide limited but additional uses of abilities (at least the wand does). They do NOT invalidate having built towards them by saying, "You now have more from this item than you will ever get from your character resources; pity you didn't invest them elsewhere so you wouldn't have wasted them on something this item just does better."
They ARE, though. The difference is that the other examples you list? They don't make it so that your investment is literally overwritten. Or, if they do? They're not even CLOSE to as good as what real investment would get you.

Few clerics will complain if the rogue can also cure wounds from a wand; the cleric's still better at it. Moreover, the cure wounds wand isn't giving the rogue near-pinnacle capability with healing, and even if the cleric has it, it's not making the cleric's own spells useless. It's increasing how often he can do it at all.

The Gauntlets of Ogre Power and Belts of Giant Strength make your own investment in strength truly irrelevant, if you get any benefit from them at all. They represent - at least the belts do - the only way to achieve a strength greater than 20, and so now whoever has invested towards maximizing strength, in order to have the highest strength possible, has WASTED that investment if he can actually achieve higher strength.

To put this in context, the argument has been made that a DM just shouldn't include these items if they'll invalidate a player's choices. Which means a DM shouldn't include a Belt of Giant Strength if there's a character in the game who's worked towards being as strong as possible. He should only do so if the characters just don't care about strength all that much.

Yeah, that makes sense. The items that push you over the top in strength are only meant to be used in games where the PC reactions will be, "Oh, that's nice, but we are all dex builds?"

But like I said, it's a matter of degrees. I'm not replying to your argument that the stat setting items invalidate character builds, I'm replying to your argument that they are contrary to the design of other items.

As an example, if the party came across a Rod of Resurrection, the Cleric might very well feel invalidated for their choice of the Healing domain. "Well if I was gonna get an item that's this powerful, I might as well have taken Light!"

[Segev]

I'm afraid ALL of those situations are fairly rare, unless the DM deliberately contrives them on a regular basis.

Even lumping them together as a class, they will represent less than 3% of most games. Incidentally, 87% of all statistics on the internet are made up on the spot.

Even if you only have one guy who can "make the most" of a high strength, he's still sitting there with an item that makes it so that his own investment is wasted.

[Segev]

But like I said, it's a matter of degrees. I'm not replying to your argument that the stat setting items invalidate character builds, I'm replying to your argument that they are contrary to the design of other items.

As an example, if the party came across a Rod of Resurrection, the Cleric might very well feel invalidated for their choice of the Healing domain. "Well if I was gonna get an item that's this powerful, I might as well have taken Light!"

Which doesn't hold water, because it doesn't overwrite his build choice. Now he can resurrect more often!

If that staff gave him all the Life-Domain powers and spells at will, he might have a case. And then only if it didn't require that he be able to cast those spells in the first place.

Can a Fighter using that staff do what the Cleric can? If so, why aren't you giving it to the Fighter, who will get a lot more out of it?

And if it makes the Fighter into a better Cleric than the Cleric, then yes, there is something wrong with that item!

[SharkForce]

I'm afraid ALL of those situations are fairly rare, unless the DM deliberately contrives them on a regular basis.

Even lumping them together as a class, they will represent less than 3% of most games. Incidentally, 87% of all statistics on the internet are made up on the spot.

Even if you only have one guy who can "make the most" of a high strength, he's still sitting there with an item that makes it so that his own investment is wasted.

really? getting captured is that rare for you? as in, you never lose a fight and get captured? people never do something incredibly stupid in a city and get thrown in jail? you never get into a situation where you're forced to surrender?

i'm not saying this is something that should happen every single session necessarily (though again, if it was a girdle and likely to be incredibly uncomfortable to sleep in it would come up much more often), but it should happen, potentially several times in a campaign, and at those times the guy who dumped strength is going to suck.

meanwhile, for every part of the campaign before getting the girdle, the guy who didn't dump strength got to be more effective. seeing as how presumably neither character was born wearing the girdle, after all. and, as i've noted, will probably be better able to take advantage of their high strength score due to having chosen abilities that complement it. unless you have magic shops that sell whatever items you want, and then we go right back to the situation where the guy with no need to buy a strength-boosting item just to be effective can instead buy a bunch of other really useful things instead and still gets to enjoy being a high-strength character.

[Segev]

Generally, no. My parties tend to (successfully) flee when we lose encounters like that. And we're usually not fighting anything that WOULD take us prisoner.

[SharkForce]

so your groups are exclusively facing either incompetents that can't catch you when they win a fight, or idiots who don't understand they can gain more from capture than they can gain from a corpse. gotcha.

[CantigThimble]

so your groups are exclusively facing either incompetents that can't catch you when they win a fight, or idiots who don't understand they can gain more from capture than they can gain from a corpse. gotcha.

Or enemies who are too afraid of dying to take the risk of capture. Once I had a fighter, warlock and bard facing a small group of enemies. The fighter did a huge amount of damage and then went down, his enemies then started attacking the rest of the party. The bard healed the fighter who immediately got back up and killed their leader before he could be brought down again. The rest of their enemies spent their turns finishing him off because no other member of the party had posed nearly as much of a threat as the fighter had in that fight. Leaving enemies alive is DANGEROUS especially when half the party has healing magic.

[SharkForce]

Or enemies who are too afraid of dying to take the risk of capture. Once I had a fighter, warlock and bard facing a small group of enemies. The fighter did a huge amount of damage and then went down, his enemies then started attacking the rest of the party. The bard healed the fighter who immediately got back up and killed their leader before he could be brought down again. The rest of their enemies spent their turns finishing him off because no other member of the party had posed nearly as much of a threat as the fighter had in that fight. Leaving enemies alive is DANGEROUS especially when half the party has healing magic.

*or* they could just haul his unconscious behind out of range of the healers. or out of sight. i mean, sure, that works once, but once the enemy figures out the guy is just going to keep getting healed, if that is literally the *only* thing keeping them from winning the fight and capturing people, they should take steps to keep him from getting healed.

[CantigThimble]

*or* they could just haul his unconscious behind out of range of the healers. or out of sight. I mean, sure, that works once, but once the enemy figures out the guy is just going to keep getting healed, if that is literally the *only* thing keeping them from winning the fight and capturing people, they should take steps to keep him from getting healed.

They did take steps. They stabbed him. They weren't in any mood to play games with their own lives after what had happened. His life wasn't valuable to them at all.

[Segev]

Yes, because taking extra time to have 1 or more combatants on your side drag an out-of-the-fight character further away for a few rounds is better than just finishing him off.

Taking prisoners is not always optimal. In fact, if you don't value life, it usually isn't. Not unless you need information or think you can ransom them (a big reason that ransoming nobles became so highly formalized: it was known large sums were available for it, so taking them alive was prioritized). This is usually not the case with the kinds of foes I've seen in most games.

[Pex]

The role of magic items is whatever the DM wants them to be and only the DM. They can be given to directly help or hinder the player or they can be nothing more than fluff but it is up to the Dm to decide.The game is not concerned period about the player when it comes to magic items, the player has zero recourse and agency to get magic items. If the DM doesn't want magic items then there will not be any magic items even if the player begs and moans and scours through the PHB for any answer, and the player only has the PHB because the DMG and the MM are DM books only and whatever is in the books can be added, removed or modified by the Dm as he sees fit so you can't use the books as a recourse either.

The player expecting the Gauntlets to drop is illogical because at no point does the game tell him that such an item will drop. The only way the player knows is if the Dm tells him and even then it might not be what he expects (Gauntlets can have +x instead of set to 19, nothing says that the Dm can't change items, or even do something different).

True, a player cannot demand specifically a Gauntlets appear in the game, but he is not without agency. If the DM refuses to play with any magic items whatsoever the player is free to vote with his feet. The DM can feel all the self-righteousness he wants he doesn't use magic items, but he may have no players. It's the DM's campaign, but it's everyone's game. If the players would like magic items to exist as part of their fun they are "entitled" to them. The DM is still the one to determine how they come into being and not as still "no magic items at all" by another name.

[Shaofoo]

"There is no problem, because magic items don't actually have to do what they're intended to do, because what they're intended to do isn't what they're intended to do if the DM doesn't say so."


That is not what I said at all.

Try "there is no problem because the DM can choose what they can and can't do."

There is no intent that the DM didn't put beyond any oversight.


Oberoni through and through, and really not a useful place to have a discussion from. By this logic, there is never any problem with any rule in any game, because obviously that was an optional part of the game the DM can leave out if it doesn't work.

You are being illogical. The magic items are not rules in the game at all. They are a fully optional part of the game that is fully within the DM's purview to see, change and add or not. This isn't even Feats and Multiclassing, a player can't even know about magic items until the DM says so or not. These aren't rules of the game, these are modules that the DM can add or not. If you think that there is a problem then obviously you give DMs all over too little credit.


Add in the persistent insinuation that anybody who disagrees is some sort of awful person for daring to think about the consequences of these items' potential, and we also learn that caring about how you spend your build resources is a moral failing.

I never said or insinuated that anyone who disagrees with me is an awful person, if you truly want a discussion I would really appreciate not saying such things because they are as you say "not a useful place to have a discussion" . And what item's potential? The only argument I am seeing is a Fighter is hurt that he can't use the Gauntlets, there was never a discussion about the Gauntlets but about a mad player who didn't get what he want from Santa BBEG. We can truly talk about the item's potential if we don't try to shoehorn in the least useful person it can go to.

[Segev]

You are being illogical. The magic items are not rules in the game at all.

Utterly false. They are as much "rules of the game" as feats, spells, or backgrounds. "Optional" doesn't make them not rules, and if the "solution" to the problems raised with them as-written is "well, the DM doesn't have to include them," then they're badly written. Unless the word-count was just there to look pretty on a page.

[pwykersotz]

Utterly false. They are as much "rules of the game" as feats, spells, or backgrounds. "Optional" doesn't make them not rules, and if the "solution" to the problems raised with them as-written is "well, the DM doesn't have to include them," then they're badly written. Unless the word-count was just there to look pretty on a page.

I agree with this. Pieces of the game need to be balanced with respect to each other, even if they're optional.

[Shaofoo]

True, a player cannot demand specifically a Gauntlets appear in the game, but he is not without agency. If the DM refuses to play with any magic items whatsoever the player is free to vote with his feet. The DM can feel all the self-righteousness he wants he doesn't use magic items, but he may have no players. It's the DM's campaign, but it's everyone's game. If the players would like magic items to exist as part of their fun they are "entitled" to them. The DM is still the one to determine how they come into being and not as still "no magic items at all" by another name.

Sure if you feel that the nuclear option is the way to go that is your right as a player, just as it is the right of the mad fighter to vote with his feet for the first magic item drop to not be one tailored for him.

It is everyone's game but it is the DM's world. If the players want to have magic items then maybe they should be the ones in the DM chair and they should be the ones to make the game.

Your point of view is one I do not subscribe, if you think the player is justified to walk out because something isn't there that was at no point promised to him what about a player that walks out if not everything goes to their way "I will walk out if I don't get a Vorpal Sword" or "I'll walk out if I am not king of the country"

So if the players need magic items for their "fun" then they can freely walk out in my campaign because they are the kind of players that I do not want on my games. I tend to value world and characters more than loot and if the players only worry about what they can get for their characters then they can freely leave, just don't expect me to change anything for them or that they expect me to beg for their return, I'll say good riddance to bad garbage.

If the players want to mold the world they can each be DMs instead of me, I am not one to hoard the DM position and each can freely be a DM.

[Shaofoo]

Utterly false. They are as much "rules of the game" as feats, spells, or backgrounds. "Optional" doesn't make them not rules, and if the "solution" to the problems raised with them as-written is "well, the DM doesn't have to include them," then they're badly written. Unless the word-count was just there to look pretty on a page.

Feats, spells and backgrounds are in the PHB. If you can point to me where the magic items are in the PHB then you'd have a point.

The DM doesn't have to include them because the games are designed around not having any magic items. The point is that the DM has all the power to change as he sees fit. The DMG and MM are not books to be taken by RAW because the Written in RAW can be fully changed by the DM and those books say that they can be changed at will. The PHB expects things to stay as it is written so you can declare RAW there but you can't declare RAW on something the book themselves give their blessing to change and modify.

You only need the PHB to play the game, the other books are tools for the DM to use, not the missing modules to make the game functional.

[Segev]

Feats, spells and backgrounds are in the PHB. If you can point to me where the magic items are in the PHB then you'd have a point.

The DM doesn't have to include them because the games are designed around not having any magic items. The point is that the DM has all the power to change as he sees fit. The DMG and MM are not books to be taken by RAW because the Written in RAW can be fully changed by the DM and those books say that they can be changed at will. The PHB expects things to stay as it is written so you can declare RAW there but you can't declare RAW on something the book themselves give their blessing to change and modify.

You only need the PHB to play the game, the other books are tools for the DM to use, not the missing modules to make the game functional.

Once again, if the only/best solution to the problems raised by these rules elements is not to include the option to use them, then they are poorly designed.

[CantigThimble]

Once again, if the only/best solution to the problems raised by these rules elements is not to include the option to use them, then they are poorly designed.

It's like that homebrew class that was on here the other day, the Blade Mage or whatever it was called. It was poorly designed. The fact that by default it is not in the game and a DM could theoretically run a game where it was not as awful as it is by default doesn't stop it from being poorly designed in and of itself.

[ad_hoc]

To clarify, do people feel like these are a problem in a game where magic items are random?

That is the type of game I play and I don't see a problem at all with the gauntlets.

I can certainly see them being a problem in a magic item shop game, but then, you shouldn't fault the game for that as it isn't designed for it.

[Shaofoo]

Once again, if the only/best solution to the problems raised by these rules elements is not to include the option to use them, then they are poorly designed.

There are several magic items that cause problems (some magic items actually designed to cause problems to those that use them) but I also do not subscribe to the throw the baby with the bathwater mentality. You can easily not put in the magic items that cause problems and you are set. This isn't about magic items as a whole, it is about the Gauntlet. I say it is poorly designed because it violates a core cornerstone in the design of the game about stats but I also understand that I can freely ignore the item in the game and choose from the ton of other magic items that do not deal with stats at all or even make up my own magic item. Gauntlets and the Belts give me an option to violate that cornerstone of design and I choose to ignore it in favor of something else that doesn't violate said cornerstone. I can see an option for what it's worth and the value in not having to choose it.

Also the biggest problem that is still presented is that the item can cause stat envy among players, which isn't a problem with the item but a problem with the players.

[hacksnake]

The items have honestly seemed fine in games I've been in so far.

In one game my character wishes I had the gauntlets because we're low level, he's MAD, and requires a number of feats to be effective (he's kind of a janky build / concept TBH). They would be a great stop gap item until I could naturally pump STR up through ASIs & eventually I'd out grow them anyway.

In another game the party knew they were starting with a belt of hill giant strength. All the STR guys maxed out their STR anyway. The belt ended up going to the 1 STR guy who hadn't gotten a 20 in STR by 5th level (his was at 18 or something I think). No one seemed upset in the least & no one showed up with an 8 STR fighter gunning for the belt even though they could have.

I'm surprised it didn't cause any issues. I almost rerolled it when it came up in the random treasure rolls I was doing because I was worried about it. Seemed to have been a non-event with really minor game impact.

Have you all really had people get that bent out of shape about them?

[Pex]

So if the players need magic items for their "fun" then they can freely walk out in my campaign because they are the kind of players that I do not want on my games. I tend to value world and characters more than loot and if the players only worry about what they can get for their characters then they can freely leave, just don't expect me to change anything for them or that they expect me to beg for their return, I'll say good riddance to bad garbage.

If the players want to mold the world they can each be DMs instead of me, I am not one to hoard the DM position and each can freely be a DM.

First Oberoni, now Stormwind. How, perchance, does the liking of having magic items in a game prevent such players from caring about what happens in the game world and character development? You deny insinuating that anyone who disagrees with you is an awful person yet here you are dismissive of players who like to have magic items in the campaign as "bad garbage".

[SharkForce]

Yes, because taking extra time to have 1 or more combatants on your side drag an out-of-the-fight character further away for a few rounds is better than just finishing him off.

Taking prisoners is not always optimal. In fact, if you don't value life, it usually isn't. Not unless you need information or think you can ransom them (a big reason that ransoming nobles became so highly formalized: it was known large sums were available for it, so taking them alive was prioritized). This is usually not the case with the kinds of foes I've seen in most games.

taking prisoners is a very standard thing in wars throughout history, and happened to include plenty of regular soldiers. probably far more often than nobles, really, though I'd certainly expect that probably has more to do with the ratio of nobles in armies than anything else.

and considering that having the person out of sight (and therefore away from healing) means you can threaten the rest of the group much more readily... actually, I'd expect lots of creatures to be interested in capturing prisoners. information is power, for one thing, and any reasonably intelligent person is going to be able to figure that out. having someone captured that you can use as leverage on your enemies is also power. generally speaking, it is very hard to persuade your enemies to do anything when you have only corpses, but much easier to threaten them if you should have captives from their side. it is also fairly standard practice throughout history to exchange prisoners.

so umm... yes, I'd expect it to be fairly common for enemies to *try* to capture the party, and in the situation described, it was basically a one-man show with the other two characters pretty much just supporting that one man by healing him every time he went down. getting the carry away from the supports is not just a good way to capture someone (which, again, gives you leverage that a corpse will not give), it is also a good way to win a fight.

[CantigThimble]

taking prisoners is a very standard thing in wars throughout history, and happened to include plenty of regular soldiers. probably far more often than nobles, really, though I'd certainly expect that probably has more to do with the ratio of nobles in armies than anything else.

and considering that having the person out of sight (and therefore away from healing) means you can threaten the rest of the group much more readily... actually, I'd expect lots of creatures to be interested in capturing prisoners. information is power, for one thing, and any reasonably intelligent person is going to be able to figure that out. having someone captured that you can use as leverage on your enemies is also power. generally speaking, it is very hard to persuade your enemies to do anything when you have only corpses, but much easier to threaten them if you should have captives from their side. it is also fairly standard practice throughout history to exchange prisoners.

so umm... yes, I'd expect it to be fairly common for enemies to *try* to capture the party, and in the situation described, it was basically a one-man show with the other two characters pretty much just supporting that one man by healing him every time he went down. getting the carry away from the supports is not just a good way to capture someone (which, again, gives you leverage that a corpse will not give), it is also a good way to win a fight.

Healing magic changes the paradigm a lot here in my opinion. Historically, people who were down and out of the fighting STAYED down or at least were weeks away from being as deadly as they were. If you take your eyes off a caster for 6 seconds, or he takes the opportunity attacks and rushes past you, or he has healing word prepared then that downed combatant is coming at you at full strength again and has a good chance of killing you. Hell, you can even use a corpse as a hostage or source of information if there's a 5th level cleric on staff.

Also this fight transpired next to the charred and beheaded corpses of two of their comrades, and later by the corpse of their dead captain. Mercy was not the thing in the front of their minds.

[JackPhoenix]

taking prisoners is a very standard thing in wars throughout history, and happened to include plenty of regular soldiers. probably far more often than nobles, really, though I'd certainly expect that probably has more to do with the ratio of nobles in armies than anything else.

and considering that having the person out of sight (and therefore away from healing) means you can threaten the rest of the group much more readily... actually, I'd expect lots of creatures to be interested in capturing prisoners. information is power, for one thing, and any reasonably intelligent person is going to be able to figure that out. having someone captured that you can use as leverage on your enemies is also power. generally speaking, it is very hard to persuade your enemies to do anything when you have only corpses, but much easier to threaten them if you should have captives from their side. it is also fairly standard practice throughout history to exchange prisoners.

so umm... yes, I'd expect it to be fairly common for enemies to *try* to capture the party, and in the situation described, it was basically a one-man show with the other two characters pretty much just supporting that one man by healing him every time he went down. getting the carry away from the supports is not just a good way to capture someone (which, again, gives you leverage that a corpse will not give), it is also a good way to win a fight.

Most characters aren't soldiers in war, they are adventurers. There aren't any formal rules for ransoming them (and most people won't deal with orcs, kobolds or gnolls anyway...over strangers, even), no prisoners to exchange them for, and most of them aren't nobles. If they have any riches, they have it on their persons in the form of equipment, which you can loot from the dead bodies. What information would you get from them? Again, they are not members of enemy army, so they don't have any useful intel beyond "we heard you have treasure, and we attacked you to steal your stuff". At most, they may be used as slaves (though spellcasters are too dangerous and anyone in their right mind would kill them outright to prevent lots of problems later), sacrificed to some dark god or eaten (and corpses suffice for the last option). And adventurers in general are too much trouble to keep imprisoned...they are rebellious, dangerous and too capable of escaping.

Unless you have a really good reason to think this band is more profitable alive then dead, you're better off just killing them instead of risking your neck to capture them alive.

[Shaofoo]

First Oberoni, now Stormwind. How, perchance, does the liking of having magic items in a game prevent such players from caring about what happens in the game world and character development? You deny insinuating that anyone who disagrees with you is an awful person yet here you are dismissive of players who like to have magic items in the campaign as "bad garbage".

Those words, I do not think it means what you think it means.

This isn't about liking magic items, this is demanding the DM to change their world to better suit their own personal likes or they are out the door. You said:


If the DM refuses to play with any magic items whatsoever the player is free to vote with his feet. The DM can feel all the self-righteousness he wants he doesn't use magic items, but he may have no players.


If the players would like magic items to exist as part of their fun they are "entitled" to them.

As if the players dictate the world and not the DM. This is far beyond liking magic items, this is hijacking the game to better suit your own personal needs.

Also:


The DM is still the one to determine how they come into being and not as still "no magic items at all" by another name.

By demanding the DM still come up with something that in spirit is still magic items to placate your own personal stance

So yeah no fallacies done (I mean Stormwind, really?) but a bunch of players trying to do the DM's job. You presented an all or nothing scenario and I choose your nothing. If magic items are not part of the DM's world then what? Is the DM supposed to sacrifice his world to better suit the players? Of course you talk from a player centric view so I am sure you will say yes and for the DM to suck it up I am sure.

So yeah sorry I can't be emphatic to unemphatic individuals, usually I like a little give and take in a relationship. I do not like people demanding something that was at no point promised at all, not by me and not by the game. If you want magic items we can maybe come with a compromise but demanding as you so bluntly put it will instead have you shown the door. The game doesn't need magic items to be fun and if you think so then we have to agree to disagree.

So yeah liking magic items doesn't make you bad garbage, demanding that the world confirm to your own personal tastes DM plans be damned does because they subscribe to the vision of "My fun begins were yours ends". You said the players can vote with their feet, they left the building I didn't make them.

[krugaan]

taking prisoners is a very standard thing in wars throughout history, and happened to include plenty of regular soldiers. probably far more often than nobles, really, though I'd certainly expect that probably has more to do with the ratio of nobles in armies than anything else.


really? i'm pretty sure only the rich (knights, commanders, nobles) were ransomed in wars in ancient/medieval history. Prisoners are a drag to transport, guard, feed, and ransom, and are much easier to leave rotting on the battlefield with not much difference in net gain.

[SharkForce]

you trade *your* prisoners for theirs.

and if the adventurers are that dangerous, odds are good they have made allies or enemies who would be willing to pay to have them.

assuming you can even tell they're adventurers, that is. i mean, it's not like they carry a sign that says "we're not here on anyone else's behalf and have no associations with anyone".

as to not having any diplomatic relations with kobolds, goblins, etc... i find that incredibly improbable in any sort of remotely realistic setting. you'd have to be mind-bogglingly stupid to insist on a war of annihilation against an enemy that outbreeds you by as much as those races do. you'd have to be even *more* stupid to refuse to negotiate with them when your options are either surrender or having your city burned to the ground and plundered.

[Pex]

Those words, I do not think it means what you think it means.

This isn't about liking magic items, this is demanding the DM to change their world to better suit their own personal likes or they are out the door. You said:





As if the players dictate the world and not the DM. This is far beyond liking magic items, this is hijacking the game to better suit your own personal needs.

Also:



By demanding the DM still come up with something that in spirit is still magic items to placate your own personal stance

So yeah no fallacies done (I mean Stormwind, really?) but a bunch of players trying to do the DM's job. You presented an all or nothing scenario and I choose your nothing. If magic items are not part of the DM's world then what? Is the DM supposed to sacrifice his world to better suit the players? Of course you talk from a player centric view so I am sure you will say yes and for the DM to suck it up I am sure.

So yeah sorry I can't be emphatic to unemphatic individuals, usually I like a little give and take in a relationship. I do not like people demanding something that was at no point promised at all, not by me and not by the game. If you want magic items we can maybe come with a compromise but demanding as you so bluntly put it will instead have you shown the door. The game doesn't need magic items to be fun and if you think so then we have to agree to disagree.

So yeah liking magic items doesn't make you bad garbage, demanding that the world confirm to your own personal tastes DM plans be damned does because they subscribe to the vision of "My fun begins were yours ends". You said the players can vote with their feet, they left the building I didn't make them.

The DM is not Lord and Master. If you're the new guy joining an established group, you don't get to say how the game is played. You either like what the DM has to offer or you vote with your feet and decide not to play. If you're an established group starting a new game or a group of strangers meeting for the first time, it is perfectly reasonable for everyone to discuss how they'd like the game to play. A potential DM can still say he wants to run his game a certain way, take it or leave it. The other players are certainly within their rights to leave it. If neither refuse to budge for compromise then he's not their DM and they are not his players. Doesn't stop him from being a player while another player becomes DM.

As I said before, if the players do decide to leave it, the DM can be all self-righteous as he wants. He's still no one's DM because no one is playing. He could very well find other players who like what he has to offer. He could also never find such players, in which case he might consider changing things to something players do like.

In any case, 5E does not forbid magic items. For many people it is a nice feature there is no particular magic item a PC needs to defeat expected opponents in combat. That lack of need does not equate to there should never be any. If you don't want any in your games and your players are fine with that, hooray for you. That does not make other groups who want and like having magic items in their games having badwrongfun. Of those groups, for some of them they find the Gauntlets of Ogre Power and Belts of Giant Strength to have been poorly designed magic items. It is irrelevant they don't have to exist in their game. They're still poorly designed items in their view, and that poor design is possibly the reason they aren't going to exist in their game and are disappointed they have to make it so.

[Malifice]

Once again, if the only/best solution to the problems raised by these rules elements is not to include the option to use them, then they are poorly designed.

Thats not true mate.

Magic items are a reward for the players. I cant get why you're being so negative about them.

Of course magic items bend thins like bounded accuracy and introduce an element to the game. They're magical!

I use them (as do I dare say most DM's). A combination of placing them before the PCs and the occasional random roll for a horde in accordance with the DMG (for a bit of fun). I keep an eye on them as DM to make sure they dont get out of hand and its not too monty haul.

I think youre jumping at shadows here.

[CantigThimble]

Thats not true mate.

Magic items are a reward for the players. I cant get why you're being so negative about them.

Of course magic items bend thins like bounded accuracy and introduce an element to the game. They're magical!

I use them (as do I dare say most DM's). A combination of placing them before the PCs and the occasional random roll for a horde in accordance with the DMG (for a bit of fun). I keep an eye on them as DM to make sure they dont get out of hand and its not too monty haul.

I think youre jumping at shadows here.

His only issue (I'm pretty sure) is that a Belt of Giant strength rewards people who don't invest in strength with lots of strength while providing much less benefit to characters who have invested in increasing their strength.

[Shaofoo]

The DM is not Lord and Master.

Actually he is, in his world and game he is Lord and Master. He might not be your Lord and Master but yeah, usually the maker of the game gets to do what he wants with his own games. That is one of the big rule about D&D, the DM is the one calling the shots. You may not like it but if you don't then why are you playing D&D?


If you're the new guy joining an established group, you don't get to say how the game is played. You either like what the DM has to offer or you vote with your feet and decide not to play.

Or you can ask nicely. Really your all or nothing attitude makes it hard to take you seriously.


If you're an established group starting a new game or a group of strangers meeting for the first time, it is perfectly reasonable for everyone to discuss how they'd like the game to play.

Except the newbie cause he gets no say in the matter. Discussion cannot happen if there is a disparity in experience.


A potential DM can still say he wants to run his game a certain way, take it or leave it. The other players are certainly within their rights to leave it. If neither refuse to budge for compromise then he's not their DM and they are not his players.

Well if there is no game then there are no players and DMs, A DM and a player only exist within a context of a game, this isn't a marriage dude; no one is permanently a DM or a player unless they choose to be in their group.


As I said before, if the players do decide to leave it, the DM can be all self-righteous as he wants. He's still no one's DM because no one is playing. He could very well find other players who like what he has to offer. He could also never find such players, in which case he might consider changing things to something players do like.

See this kind of attitude makes it hard to take you seriously cause it is so obvious that you side with the players. I can't see you as anything but the kind of guy who wants to see DMs taken down a peg for playing the game the way it was supposed to be played.


In any case, 5E does not forbid magic items.

Yes but it doesn't allow it either. And the standard is no magic items.


For many people it is a nice feature there is no particular magic item a PC needs to defeat expected opponents in combat. That lack of need does not equate to there should never be any.

Magic items aren't supposed to be needed, they are bonuses. You are supposed to play the game normally without magic items.


If you don't want any in your games and your players are fine with that, hooray for you.

Obviously, it is because I lucked out.


That does not make other groups who want and like having magic items in their games having badwrongfun.

Except I never said anything of the sort.


Of those groups, for some of them they find the Gauntlets of Ogre Power and Belts of Giant Strength to have been poorly designed magic items.

And if you read the thread I am one of those people.


It is irrelevant they don't have to exist in their game. They're still poorly designed items in their view, and that poor design is possibly the reason they aren't going to exist in their game and are disappointed they have to make it so.

So the point is.... they don't like an item they think it is poorly designed so they won't use the item they think is poorly designed and are sad that they don't want to use an item because it is poorly designed. You changed gears so hard I got whiplash.

But I don't think any further discussion about this is needed, it is obvious that you subscribe to the mentality that DMs are for the players and the player is always right and if the DM loses the players then it was his fault as if the DM is some sort of entertainer for the player's enjoyment and only the player's enjoyment. I subscribe to the mentality that everyone is equal and we should all have fun, not force the DM to do what he doesn't want so he doesn't lose his audience. But this is way off topic anyway so lets drop the topic.

[Malifice]

His only issue (I'm pretty sure) is that a Belt of Giant strength rewards people who don't invest in strength with lots of strength while providing much less benefit to characters who have invested in increasing their strength.

But people who invest in strength will get more use out of the item than people who dont.

My warlock has a Str of 16 and Gauntlets of Ogre power. Its a net gain of +1 but I wouldn't trade them for the world (barring a nice belt of course). They mean that I can dedicate the rest of my ASI's to Charisma (im already loaded with HAM, Warcaster and GWM).

Ive thrown a headband of wisdom out to my parties druid and he is pretty happy with it despite having a wisdom of 16. Frees him up to invest his ASI's elsewhere (as long as he is happy to fill up one of his attunement slots with the item).

He could contine to bump Wisdom (freeing up his attunement slot, AND getting a Wisdom of 20 over 19) or branch out elsewhere.

I find the stat items (for the most part) strike a good balance.

[MeeposFire]

His only issue (I'm pretty sure) is that a Belt of Giant strength rewards people who don't invest in strength with lots of strength while providing much less benefit to characters who have invested in increasing their strength.

This is a case of making a Mt. Everest out of a mole hill.

[georgie_leech]

But people who invest in strength will get more use out of the item than people who dont.

My warlock has a Str of 16 and Gauntlets of Ogre power. Its a net gain of +1 but I wouldn't trade them for the world (barring a nice belt of course). They mean that I can dedicate the rest of my ASI's to Charisma (im already loaded with HAM, Warcaster and GWM).

Ive thrown a headband of wisdom out to my parties druid and he is pretty happy with it despite having a wisdom of 16. Frees him up to invest his ASI's elsewhere (as long as he is happy to fill up one of his attunement slots with the item).

He could contine to bump Wisdom (freeing up his attunement slot, AND getting a Wisdom of 20 over 19) or branch out elsewhere.

I find the stat items (for the most part) strike a good balance.

'My character loves STR! The item let's me invest in everything else instead!' There seems to be a bit of a disconnect between these statements.:smallconfused:

In particular, had you already invested in STR (or WIS, in the case of the Druid), the item wouldn't actually do anything. That's what some of us have been arguing; that boosting STR for characters who would rather boost other Attributes or get Feats instead and not boosting STR for characters that want STR badly enough to actually invest in it (considering that a character that wants STR can easily start a 16 and get to 18 as early as level 4) is backwards design. Like a sword that rewards goodness and devotion but doesn't work with Oath of Devotion Paladins, or an item that gives Sorcerer casting unless the character can cast Sorcerer spells.

To reiterate, I have less of a problem with the Belts that boost STR over 20, as they at least still give some benefit to characters that care about STR. I think they're somewhat unbalanced, but that's distinct from being poorly designed.

[CantigThimble]

This is a case of making a Mt. Everest out of a mole hill.

The complaints are pretty reasonable at heart. It's just people feel the need to disagree when they hear 'poorly designed' applied to any portion of a system they like, no matter how small or in what context.

[ad_hoc]

To reiterate, I have less of a problem with the Belts that boost STR over 20, as they at least still give some benefit to characters that care about STR. I think they're somewhat unbalanced, but that's distinct from being poorly designed.

Can you explain the problem, I still don't see it.

A character that doesn't care about strength much can still get use out of the gauntlets. They can climb better for instance and they are a 2nd high strength character in case there is something really heavy to move.

Just because 1 character in a party has a 20 Str doesn't mean having another with a 19 is useless. It's certainly better than not finding anything at all.

[Malifice]

In particular, had you already invested in STR (or WIS, in the case of the Druid), the item wouldn't actually do anything.

Awesome! I'm already stronger than an Ogre. It frees up an attunement slot (you only get three) for a different item, I can toss it to to a different PC (benefitting me indirectly by helping the party) or sell the gauntlets, and I can still aim for a stat of 20.

If I wanted a Str of 20 on my warlock, I would bump Str to 18, hand the gauntlets over to a different PC or sell them, and 4 levels later have a Strength of 20.

As it stands I get a ton of benefits from them. I no longer need to bump Str any higher saving me ASI increases to dump into Cha (or for extra feats).

I dont feel 'bad' about assigning enough attribute points (and my human +1) to Strength for a 16. Should I lose the gauntlets (or have 4 items that require attunement) I'll still have that 16 underneath the 19 as a back up.

[georgie_leech]

It's that the item is mainly for boosting strength but doesn't actually do that for people that want boosted strength the most, because they've already done so. In the editions where items were of the 'set to number' variety, you had less control over what your ability scores were at character creation and fewer means to increase them in game, none of which were very reliable, so this aspect was ameliorated somewhat. In 5e though, as mentioned it's very easy for such an item to be useless for a character that cares about raising strength as early as level 4, well before it would likely be found.

One of the basics of design is making sure that the intent, the group that wants the item, the mechanics or means it uses, and the result of a game element match up. So if you want an item that, say, let's Monks use abilities more often, the target group is clearly Monks that want to use abilities. The way it works could be a couple of things. For instance, it could grant additional Ki points, or recharge Ki over time, or even reduce the cost of Ki abilities, depending on whether you wanted to give Monks better Nova ability or more staying power. The results of such an item is that a Monk can use more abilities, so the design works. What you don't want to do is have an item that, say, grants 3 uses per day of Stunning Strike, because then rather than encouraging Monks to use more abilities, you're instead giving access to more stunning effects to everyone, without actually impacting Monks very much. Even then such an item would do at least some good for Monks as they wouldn't spend as much Ki on said ability; if it was like the Gauntlets, it would still cost Monks Ki to use.

As a more concrete example, look at the Monk's Belt from 3.5. The name suggests that the item is for Monks, but the mechanics are better instead for unarmored Clerics or Druids, who get a significant bump to AC from the item. That is poor design.

[MeeposFire]

The complaints are pretty reasonable at heart. It's just people feel the need to disagree when they hear 'poorly designed' applied to any portion of a system they like, no matter how small or in what context.

The complaints are over the top and are missing the thematic part of the item.

What these posters want are gauntlets of strength boosting. That is NOT the item we are talking about. We are talking about gauntlets of ogre power. An item designed to give you the strength of the ogre. The item actually does this as an ogres strength is a 19. An item that gives a bonus to your strength score would only rarely give you ogre strength. A 10 str character would not be close to an ogre's strength and why should a character stronger than an ogre get more strength from an item that only gives ogre strength?

They work exactly like they should and it is so much more thematic that way.

As for how it is a mountain out of a molehill it is not a broken item in the least. Even if you have a character deciding to dump str and invest in other abilities it is still not a broken item. If you want to avoid having problems then you really should want to avoid ability boosters because those are the sort of items that can eventually cause problems by breaking the limits. The gauntlets only allow you to approach them and you know exactly what you are going to get. As for the problem it is a minor annoyance at best especially since either way you have a good str score but one has to find and keep that item but the guy who boosted str gets to use his item attunement on something else which honestly will probably be much better.


Instead what would work is to have items that do different things. If you want an item that gives you advantage on str checks why not make up one? Why do we need to mess with an item that already works exactly as it should? Why do we want to go to the style only used once and subsequently made you forget these items even exist? There is a reason people from 3e talk about strength boosting item +X rather than being specific with the item.

It is funny to me that so many people (not necessarily you of course) complain about generic +X weapons, shields, and armor but many of those seem to want to go to generic +X to ability score items.


Now a fair criticism (though not a new one) is that a human maybe should not be able to naturally be as strong as an ogre. If an ogre had a str of 21 for instance and character stats (not just human) were limited to 18 or some sort I would be willing to entertain the question. I do not think it is needed but I can see somebody saying an ogre should always be stronger than the races we normally play with.

[Pex]

If you care about Strength getting the Gauntlets when your Strength is 16 is a wonderful happenstance. That is not in dispute. The problem some people have is that if you care about Strength but have used your ASI to get your Strength to 20, the Gauntlets are useless to you despite the legacy they should have been for you. If the Gauntlets is given to another party member whose Strength is anything up to 16, whether he cares about Strength or not, now has Strength almost as good as you but was able to spend his ASI on something else, whether feats or another ability score. If instead of Gauntlets it was a Belt, even just for ST 21, now that character is equally effective in Strength as you, plus a needling +1 higher, and still benefits from his ASI he did not spend in Strength. There's an imbalance between the characters. You both have +5 Strength modifier, but the other character has X more effective ASI where X = number of ASI you spent to get your Strength to 20 and he didn't. The poor design in the item is in devaluing ASI choice.

A Level 20 Barbarian player with 24 Strength from ASI, capstone, and race just might be irked the gnome cleric has 25 strength because of a magic item. He's not upset at the gnome player. He's bothered just one magic item equals all his levels, ASI, and race choice for Strength. The disappointment is in the design choice of having items set at a high static ability score. It would have been preferable to be a +2, allow for +4 or +6 for a legendary item the barbarian or any 20 Strength character from race and ASI could benefit from, or because of bounded accuracy concerns provide Advantage on Strength-based melee weapon attacks, one attack per round for a rare item, all attacks for legendary perhaps, that the high ST character the item is legacy for could benefit. The gnome cleric could benefit as well if he had the item, but it wouldn't devalue the Strength investment of ASI and race (or barbarian capstone) of another player.

[MeeposFire]

If you care about Strength getting the Gauntlets when your Strength is 16 is a wonderful happenstance. That is not in dispute. The problem some people have is that if you care about Strength but have used your ASI to get your Strength to 20, the Gauntlets are useless to you despite the legacy they should have been for you. If the Gauntlets is given to another party member whose Strength is anything up to 16, whether he cares about Strength or not, now has Strength almost as good as you but was able to spend his ASI on something else, whether feats or another ability score. If instead of Gauntlets it was a Belt, even just for ST 21, now that character is equally effective in Strength as you, plus a needling +1 higher, and still benefits from his ASI he did not spend in Strength. There's an imbalance between the characters. You both have +5 Strength modifier, but the other character has X more effective ASI where X = number of ASI you spent to get your Strength to 20 and he didn't. The poor design in the item is in devaluing ASI choice.

A Level 20 Barbarian player with 24 Strength from ASI, capstone, and race just might be irked the gnome cleric has 25 strength because of a magic item. He's not upset at the gnome player. He's bothered just one magic item equals all his levels, ASI, and race choice for Strength. The disappointment is in the design choice of having items set at a high static ability score. It would have been preferable to be a +2, allow for +4 or +6 for a legendary item the barbarian or any 20 Strength character from race and ASI could benefit from, or because of bounded accuracy concerns provide Advantage on Strength-based melee weapon attacks, one attack per round for a rare item, all attacks for legendary perhaps, that the high ST character the item is legacy for could benefit. The gnome cleric could benefit as well if he had the item, but it wouldn't devalue the Strength investment of ASI and race (or barbarian capstone) of another player.

Why should I be mad? If the other guy gets a big bonus out of a strength item I get a bigger boost from a different item. With my high strength my barbarian does not need to waste an attunement slot on a belt of giants str but YOU do. I can spend it on a powerful weapon or a variety of other items the which the cleric may not be able to use because he has to spend an item spot to try to get close to your str.

The game is built on opportunity costs and any use of these items prevent you from using another one and those can provide you more of a benefit.

Now what can be annoying is if all the items you got were str boosting items and not anything else that was cool but I would say that is more an issue with an individual DM not being very thoughtful with the items given.

[ad_hoc]

It's that the item is mainly for boosting strength but doesn't actually do that for people that want boosted strength the most, because they've already done so. In the editions where items were of the 'set to number' variety, you had less control over what your ability scores were at character creation and fewer means to increase them in game, none of which were very reliable, so this aspect was ameliorated somewhat. In 5e though, as mentioned it's very easy for such an item to be useless for a character that cares about raising strength as early as level 4, well before it would likely be found.

One of the basics of design is making sure that the intent, the group that wants the item, the mechanics or means it uses, and the result of a game element match up. So if you want an item that, say, let's Monks use abilities more often, the target group is clearly Monks that want to use abilities. The way it works could be a couple of things. For instance, it could grant additional Ki points, or recharge Ki over time, or even reduce the cost of Ki abilities, depending on whether you wanted to give Monks better Nova ability or more staying power. The results of such an item is that a Monk can use more abilities, so the design works. What you don't want to do is have an item that, say, grants 3 uses per day of Stunning Strike, because then rather than encouraging Monks to use more abilities, you're instead giving access to more stunning effects to everyone, without actually impacting Monks very much. Even then such an item would do at least some good for Monks as they wouldn't spend as much Ki on said ability; if it was like the Gauntlets, it would still cost Monks Ki to use.

As a more concrete example, look at the Monk's Belt from 3.5. The name suggests that the item is for Monks, but the mechanics are better instead for unarmored Clerics or Druids, who get a significant bump to AC from the item. That is poor design.

But the assumption is not that you are going to go to the magic shop to find the item that boosts your strength.

You can just find it randomly and it will make someone in the party have the strength of an ogre. That is working as intended.

The point of the item is to make someone as strong as an ogre, and it does that. If someone already has the strength of an ogre it won't help them, and that also makes sense.

[georgie_leech]

But the assumption is not that you are going to go to the magic shop to find the item that boosts your strength.

You can just find it randomly and it will make someone in the party have the strength of an ogre. That is working as intended.

The point of the item is to make someone as strong as an ogre, and it does that. If someone already has the strength of an ogre it won't help them, and that also makes sense.

Which is why I'm arguing from a game design perspective and not a DM or Player perspective. :smalltongue:

The item strikes me as a call back to older editions that was poorly implemented because of the different context in which it exists. Such design choices bug me in a way that can be difficult to articulate. It bothers me when an item's apparent purpose is 'make someone stronger' but it doesn't do that consistently. It did in the older editions, because an 18/00 was very difficult to get otherwise. Now though it's closer to 'make people who care less about strength stronger, ' which as I said bugs me. Like a magic weapon that grants half proficiency bonus to someone untrained with it, which still gets better used by someone proficient with it as now they can at least get through normal weapon immunity and get a bigger boost out of using it.

[Malifice]

If you care about Strength getting the Gauntlets when your Strength is 16 is a wonderful happenstance. That is not in dispute. The problem some people have is that if you care about Strength but have used your ASI to get your Strength to 20, the Gauntlets are useless to you despite the legacy they should have been for you.

So? Youre already more awesome than the Gauntlets of Ogre power. This saves you an item attunement slot for a different item, aids you by buffing the party when you hand them over to the cleric (who youre still able to kick his ass in an armwrestle), or alternatively earns you some considerable gold if you sell them off.


A Level 20 Barbarian player with 24 Strength from ASI, capstone, and race just might be irked the gnome cleric has 25 strength because of a magic item. He's not upset at the gnome player. He's bothered just one magic item equals all his levels, ASI, and race choice for Strength. The disappointment is in the design choice of having items set at a high static ability score. It would have been preferable to be a +2, allow for +4 or +6 for a legendary item the barbarian or any 20 Strength character from race and ASI could benefit from, or because of bounded accuracy concerns provide Advantage on Strength-based melee weapon attacks, one attack per round for a rare item, all attacks for legendary perhaps, that the high ST character the item is legacy for could benefit. The gnome cleric could benefit as well if he had the item, but it wouldn't devalue the Strength investment of ASI and race (or barbarian capstone) of another player.

Nah man, the Barbarian just sells the Belt of Stone Giant strength and buys himself a castle. Or alternatively (assuming purchasing magic items is allowed, and in any campagin where magic items exists, there is no in game reason why it shouldnt be) he buys himself a magic greatsword and attunes to that instead.

[Segev]

Thats not true mate.

Magic items are a reward for the players. I cant get why you're being so negative about them.

Of course magic items bend thins like bounded accuracy and introduce an element to the game. They're magical!

...

I think youre jumping at shadows here.You're missing the crux of my point. CantigThimble captures it well:


His only issue (I'm pretty sure) is that a Belt of Giant strength rewards people who don't invest in strength with lots of strength while providing much less benefit to characters who have invested in increasing their strength.


But people who invest in strength will get more use out of the item than people who dont.

My warlock has a Str of 16 and Gauntlets of Ogre power. Its a net gain of +1 but I wouldn't trade them for the world (barring a nice belt of course). They mean that I can dedicate the rest of my ASI's to Charisma (im already loaded with HAM, Warcaster and GWM).

Ive thrown a headband of wisdom out to my parties druid and he is pretty happy with it despite having a wisdom of 16. Frees him up to invest his ASI's elsewhere (as long as he is happy to fill up one of his attunement slots with the item).

He could contine to bump Wisdom (freeing up his attunement slot, AND getting a Wisdom of 20 over 19) or branch out elsewhere.

I find the stat items (for the most part) strike a good balance.Pity your Druid didn't invest his ASIs elsewhere sooner. And you're hogging that item that would make him far more accurate than it made you, relatively, thus denying the party a larger boost to overall effectiveness. AND it has made the investment you put into Strength that slowed down your Cha advancement a waste. It didn't reward you for the investment; it overwrote it.


The complaints are over the top and are missing the thematic part of the item.I am not. I have even commented that I like the thematic element; it just is not well designed and creates effects counter to what their intent is, mechanically.


What these posters want are gauntlets of strength boosting.Those were a better design for the kind of game 5e is, even if they're less thematic, yes.


As for how it is a mountain out of a molehill it is not a broken item in the least.It's a "mountain out of a molehill" because people are so bent out of shape that it might be suggested that this is not good design that they're insisting it has to be great, and casting aspersions on anybody who disagrees.


Even if you have a character deciding to dump str and invest in other abilities it is still not a broken item.The "set at X" items are broken because they reward those who, thematically, they should be given to less than they do those who, thematically, they should not.

Put another way, if you care about what they give you (particularly the set-at-more-than-20 ones), you get less out of them than if you don't, so either way you're not as thrilled by them as you should be. Well, you might be in the first case, but only because you aren't realizing that you've wasted your investments. I suppose one can rely on ignorance being bliss, but it's then disingenuous to declare people who are aware of the opportunity costs squandered to be whiny, entitled, or otherwise bad people for realizing that this "reward" has not actually rewarded their investment at all.


If you want to avoid having problems then you really should want to avoid ability boosters because those are the sort of items that can eventually cause problems by breaking the limits. The gauntlets only allow you to approach them and you know exactly what you are going to get.This is irrelevant to my point. I will not belabor why; I have explained at length already, in this post and others. If you don't get what I mean, I will try again, but I encourage you to re-read what I've written with the fact that this is irrelevant in mind. It may help you understand what I am actually driving at.


As for the problem it is a minor annoyance at best especially since either way you have a good str score but one has to find and keep that item but the guy who boosted str gets to use his item attunement on something else which honestly will probably be much better.So... it's fine because the guy who really wants the highest strength he can get is going to have less than the guy who gets the set-at-22 item, because he'll get something "much better" which doesn't change the fact that his "strong guy" goal is overshadowed by somebody who didn't care that much about being strong and didn't strive for it.


A good point that I didn't quote was something I hadn't thought of: In earlier editions when you could get these set-at-X items, stats weren't something you invested in. The set-at-X items at worst overwrote a "good" stat, which doesn't change how you would have done your initial allotment. It's the fact that you can spend 12 levels working towards maximizing your stat-of-choice only to have the item that would let you get better than 20 in it...be better to hand to the guy who took feats, instead, because you're already at 20 and the extra +1 from you getting 22 isn't as good as his extra +3 from getting a 22. Even if you get something else, this other guy is better at what you've been building for the whole time.

Little is more likely to ruin a game for me than to have designed a character to do something, only to find that another PC is better at it and overshadows mine at it every single time. Call me whatever names you like for this, but I do think it quite reasonable to want to play a character who has a niche other than "second fiddle to the guy who didn't even try to build for my schtick."

[JoeJ]

Put another way, if you care about what they give you (particularly the set-at-more-than-20 ones), you get less out of them than if you don't, so either way you're not as thrilled by them as you should be. Well, you might be in the first case, but only because you aren't realizing that you've wasted your investments. I suppose one can rely on ignorance being bliss, but it's then disingenuous to declare people who are aware of the opportunity costs squandered to be whiny, entitled, or otherwise bad people for realizing that this "reward" has not actually rewarded their investment at all.

I believe you when you say that you feel that way, but I honestly don't understand it. What you call wasted investment, I call getting to play the character I want throughout the entire game and not just a little bit at the end.

I could see being annoyed if I'd been playing Muscles McStrong and somebody else got the Belt of Giant Strength, but the division of treasure is a matter between players, not the responsibility of the devs.

[Malifice]

Pity your Druid didn't invest his ASIs elsewhere sooner. And you're hogging that item that would make him far more accurate than it made you, relatively, thus denying the party a larger boost to overall effectiveness. AND it has made the investment you put into Strength that slowed down your Cha advancement a waste. It didn't reward you for the investment; it overwrote it.

The Druid is still able to bump his Wisdom to 20 if he wants to (for the extra +1 bonus over the item) and then hand the item to another PC (or sell the thing) freeing up an item slot. In the meantime he gets his Wisdom boosted from 16 to 19 in exchange for filling an item slot.

Whats the problem?

Fixed bonuses to stats messes with bounded accuracy in ways I'm not comfortable with, and fixed stats are a better compromise.

[ad_hoc]

Which is why I'm arguing from a game design perspective and not a DM or Player perspective. :smalltongue:

The item strikes me as a call back to older editions that was poorly implemented because of the different context in which it exists. Such design choices bug me in a way that can be difficult to articulate. It bothers me when an item's apparent purpose is 'make someone stronger' but it doesn't do that consistently. It did in the older editions, because an 18/00 was very difficult to get otherwise. Now though it's closer to 'make people who care less about strength stronger, ' which as I said bugs me. Like a magic weapon that grants half proficiency bonus to someone untrained with it, which still gets better used by someone proficient with it as now they can at least get through normal weapon immunity and get a bigger boost out of using it.

So you are applying a purpose to it then you are upset that it doesn't achieve that purpose.

The purpose is that it is an item that can make someone as strong as an ogre. Nothing more.

It doesn't need to have an objective value. If this was 3.x I would agree that it was poorly designed. But in 5e magic items have different purposes.

[georgie_leech]

So you are applying a purpose to it then you are upset that it doesn't achieve that purpose.

The purpose is that it is an item that can make someone as strong as an ogre. Nothing more.

It doesn't need to have an objective value. If this was 3.x I would agree that it was poorly designed. But in 5e magic items have different purposes.

Right, that's the intent. The problem is that it's too easy to become as strong as an ogre in other ways, so the item will frequently go those who aren't as interested in being as strong as an ogre. Magic shields will generally be used by characters interested in shields to begin with, magic weapons will generally go to those interested in good weapons, but the gloves of ogre strength don't go to those interested in being as strong as an ogre. Sure, it's a boost to most anyone anyway; everything short of a cursed weapon is like that. A Rogue certainly isn't going to object to extra jumping ability or being able to avoid being shoved around, but it's unlikely to be a significant goal.

That's why I have less issue with the Belts, as so far there's only one way of being that strong otherwise and that's to take 20 levels of Barbarian. They are the primary means of getting that strong, so even if they overwrite investment a bit, they're less awkwardly placed than the gauntlets.

[MeeposFire]

You're missing the crux of my point. CantigThimble captures it well:



Pity your Druid didn't invest his ASIs elsewhere sooner. And you're hogging that item that would make him far more accurate than it made you, relatively, thus denying the party a larger boost to overall effectiveness. AND it has made the investment you put into Strength that slowed down your Cha advancement a waste. It didn't reward you for the investment; it overwrote it.

I am not. I have even commented that I like the thematic element; it just is not well designed and creates effects counter to what their intent is, mechanically.

Those were a better design for the kind of game 5e is, even if they're less thematic, yes.

It's a "mountain out of a molehill" because people are so bent out of shape that it might be suggested that this is not good design that they're insisting it has to be great, and casting aspersions on anybody who disagrees.

The "set at X" items are broken because they reward those who, thematically, they should be given to less than they do those who, thematically, they should not.

Put another way, if you care about what they give you (particularly the set-at-more-than-20 ones), you get less out of them than if you don't, so either way you're not as thrilled by them as you should be. Well, you might be in the first case, but only because you aren't realizing that you've wasted your investments. I suppose one can rely on ignorance being bliss, but it's then disingenuous to declare people who are aware of the opportunity costs squandered to be whiny, entitled, or otherwise bad people for realizing that this "reward" has not actually rewarded their investment at all.

This is irrelevant to my point. I will not belabor why; I have explained at length already, in this post and others. If you don't get what I mean, I will try again, but I encourage you to re-read what I've written with the fact that this is irrelevant in mind. It may help you understand what I am actually driving at.

So... it's fine because the guy who really wants the highest strength he can get is going to have less than the guy who gets the set-at-22 item, because he'll get something "much better" which doesn't change the fact that his "strong guy" goal is overshadowed by somebody who didn't care that much about being strong and didn't strive for it.


A good point that I didn't quote was something I hadn't thought of: In earlier editions when you could get these set-at-X items, stats weren't something you invested in. The set-at-X items at worst overwrote a "good" stat, which doesn't change how you would have done your initial allotment. It's the fact that you can spend 12 levels working towards maximizing your stat-of-choice only to have the item that would let you get better than 20 in it...be better to hand to the guy who took feats, instead, because you're already at 20 and the extra +1 from you getting 22 isn't as good as his extra +3 from getting a 22. Even if you get something else, this other guy is better at what you've been building for the whole time.

Little is more likely to ruin a game for me than to have designed a character to do something, only to find that another PC is better at it and overshadows mine at it every single time. Call me whatever names you like for this, but I do think it quite reasonable to want to play a character who has a niche other than "second fiddle to the guy who didn't even try to build for my schtick."






We are not going to see eye since to me having high str allows my character to be effective at all times and save a spot for something else. Let us say we have 2 characters and they have 2 magic items that are great and both are keepers. Now we have a 3rd item gauntlets of ogre power and a sword with +2d6 bonus damage per hit (or whatever awesome item you could have)with the same + to hit as your non-attunement based weapons. The low str character has to take the gauntlets to be almost as effective as the high str guy AND the high str guy gets to use a better weapon on top of that. Yes I had to invest and he didn't and his str is almost as good but my investment payed off with dividends by allowing me to choose a different magic item to keep.

Considering how few item slots you get I personally think that saving a spot for one item to make up for a low attack stat comes with so many issues that I do not think I can call it a free lunch or something that would bother me as a player or DM. IF this is a campaign with lots of magic items then I would figure I will eventually get something that is worth more than the gauntlets. If it a low item campaign then I would not want to rely on a specific item to get my character up to basic competence.

There are room for other items that do the srt of things you want that do not require changing the GoOP and I do not see your arguments as proving that the item is bad design rather than just a design you do not like (which may be attributed that you see it as an item for the strong where as I see it as an item for the weak to become strong). From my experience I have found stat items of +X are more disruptive than the set stat to X items. In my opinion there is a good reason they were only used extensively in one edition in D&D (I say extensively because you can find stat boosting in older versions of D&D but they are far from common and run the gamut of being mostly useless to almost breaking the game depending on your stats and the amount the + is). Also I would note from a game design perspective these are the least disruptive stat items we have had. An 18/00 str in AD&D is far more powerful than a 19 in 5e and being able to boost your main attack stat by a number is also more powerful when it is combined with a high base stat than an item setting the number to a level of pretty good competence (19 is pretty good but not GREAT in 5e after a short while).

It is thematic (you agreed to that), it is less disruptive, and gives a useful bonus to many though not all characters.

A +X to state item is less thematic, more disruptive to the game math, and is still useful to some but not all characters (to me the less thematic ones as it is now an item for the strong instead of the weak but I know you don't feel the same with that).

To me you are arguing that I should take it down two notches to change which type of characters it should be for. I just do not see how that is worth it to me.

[georgie_leech]

Just a note that it is possible to have +X items not be disruptive to game math, at least not any more than the Belts are already. '+X to Stat, capped at Y' is an example of the format.

[MeeposFire]

Just a note that it is possible to have +X items not be disruptive to game math, at least not any more than the Belts are already. '+X to Stat, capped at Y' is an example of the format.

You lose the thematic nature and you are just changing the sweet spot for the str score. It also changes the dynamic of an item. Instead of being an optional item it is now a must have (unless the cap is set too low in which case we are back to a high str character asking what is the point which is what you want to avoid). Remember how powerful a +X sword actually is compared to most other choices and think about if these gauntlets gave you a +2 to str and had a cap higher than the normal cap of 20 (which is the only way for this item to be useful for somebody who has fully invested in str) then it is even more powerful than that since it gives a number of other benefits at the far end of the bounded accuracy spectrum which as we know is how you get the largest benefit from a +.

From my experience stats that are too high are more of a problem than raising a low stat to a good but not extreme stat. As for the limit I just do not seeing it working, at least for me. At 19 or lower the original item is better. At 20 and above it is more powerful (with of course the higher the limit the more powerful it becomes) for stronger characters and is starting push the extreme end up which to me is starting to push towards trouble. Yes a belt of giant str would have a similar score but it is supposed to come online much later than the gauntlets in most games (not a hard and fast rule but generally true).

I do not think it would completely break the game but I am not seeing it as an improvement either.

It could be the lack of sleep but I am having a hard time thinking of a good limit that actually helps the issue you have with the original while not allowing the result being a power creep.

[Malifice]

Just a note that it is possible to have +X items not be disruptive to game math, at least not any more than the Belts are already. '+X to Stat, capped at Y' is an example of the format.

How does that fix the problem? The current items use just such a formula where X = Y

[georgie_leech]

You lose the thematic nature and you are just changing the sweet spot for the str score. It also changes the dynamic of an item. Instead of being an optional item it is now a must have (unless the cap is set too low in which case we are back to a high str character asking what is the point which is what you want to avoid). Remember how powerful a +X sword actually is compared to most other choices and think about if these gauntlets gave you a +2 to str and had a cap higher than the normal cap of 20 (which is the only way for this item to be useful for somebody who has fully invested in str) then it is even more powerful than that since it gives a number of other benefits at the far end of the bounded accuracy spectrum which as we know is how you get the largest benefit from a +.

From my experience stats that are too high are more of a problem than raising a low stat to a good but not extreme stat. As for the limit I just do not seeing it working, at least for me. At 19 or lower the original item is better. At 20 and above it is more powerful (with of course the higher the limit the more powerful it becomes) for stronger characters and is starting push the extreme end up which to me is starting to push towards trouble. Yes a belt of giant str would have a similar score but it is supposed to come online much later than the gauntlets in most games (not a hard and fast rule but generally true).

I do not think it would completely break the game but I am not seeing it as an improvement either.

It could be the lack of sleep but I am having a hard time thinking of a good limit that actually helps the issue you have with the original while not allowing the result being a power creep.

I was just pointing out that +X items can remain within bounded accuracy, not that they solve the other problems with such items. If I were to design set-to-X items for 5e, I would have items much like how they are now, but I would include some other benefit for those who already have STR such that the item doesn't actually boost STR. For instance, the Gauntlets might grant Advantage on checks made to break down doors or damage items. This is an entirely off the cuff example made at 2 in the morning so it may or may not be balanced, but it's just meant as an example anyway.

EDIT:


How does that fix the problem? The current items use just such a formula where X = Y

It doesn't. I wasn't suggesting it as a way to fix the Gauntlets, just saying that +X items don't inherently break bounded accuracy if they're paired either with other qualities, or if the values remain small.

[Shaofoo]

+X stat items exist as Ioun Stones of Stat, they give +2 and cap at 20 so they don't break the bounded accuracy beyond basically giving the user a free ASI.

But still I am not sure why do we have to make the Gauntlets usable for everyone, I mean look at the Bracers of Defense, you'd think an item that is supposed to boost defense would be wanted most of all by the front line fighters yet they are useless to them because they will probably have plate mail and maybe a shield and whatever benefit to them is about as much as wearing leather armor with a max AC of 17. You can say it was meant for monks or sorcerers or anyone that doesn't need armor to have a high AC but then why couldn't you say that the Gauntlets are also for those not of maxed stats. Bracers of Defense is supposed to raise armor, Gauntlets raise strength, neither are usable to a high strength fighter.

[georgie_leech]

Slight correction, the bracers are for boosting AC of unarmored characters, not necessarily those who can get AC without armor. And on further reflection, if I were to design the set X items, particularly the gauntlets, in a way that helped everyone, I would take the 'emulating another creature' aspect and run with it. So the first quality sets the stat to the equivalent value, 19 in this case. If the wearer already has equal or greater STR though, they get some other quality that Ogres have. Will have to check later to see what sort of abilities might be appropriate.

[MeeposFire]

I was just pointing out that +X items can remain within bounded accuracy, not that they solve the other problems with such items. If I were to design set-to-X items for 5e, I would have items much like how they are now, but I would include some other benefit for those who already have STR such that the item doesn't actually boost STR. For instance, the Gauntlets might grant Advantage on checks made to break down doors or damage items. This is an entirely off the cuff example made at 2 in the morning so it may or may not be balanced, but it's just meant as an example anyway.

EDIT:



It doesn't. I wasn't suggesting it as a way to fix the Gauntlets, just saying that +X items don't inherently break bounded accuracy if they're paired either with other qualities, or if the values remain small.

Why not just have an item that gives you advantage on str checks as a separate item? I do not have an issue really of adding that ability to the item so to speak but I also do not see the point. If as a DM I wanted to give the low str guy an item I would give him the gauntlets of ogre strength. If I wanted to give an item for the high strength guy I would give out the advantage to str checks item.

Makes a decent compromise if you have players that REALLY hate missing out on the ogre gauntlets and have maxed out str. Of course it does not help if the issue with the item is the concept of items that set your ability scores.

[georgie_leech]

Why not just have an item that gives you advantage on str checks as a separate item? I do not have an issue really of adding that ability to the item so to speak but I also do not see the point. If as a DM I wanted to give the low str guy an item I would give him the gauntlets of ogre strength. If I wanted to give an item for the high strength guy I would give out the advantage to str checks item.

Makes a decent compromise if you have players that REALLY hate missing out on the ogre gauntlets and have maxed out str. Of course it does not help if the issue with the item is the concept of items that set your ability scores.

Indeed. Like I said up thread, they are a callback to previous editions where they made sense, but the framework rules have changed since then and they don't fit very well. Similarly, +X items just wouldn't work in 4e, as Ability Scores do enough different things in different contexts that they would be impossible to balance in a way that didn't make them the clear correct choice for whatever 'slot' they were occupying, or the clear wrong one. That edition instead went with items that had defined effects, for instance a set of armbands that increased melee damage. I'd rather the Set to X items be replaced with something that gives a thematic bonus. Like how the Enhance Ability spell no longer gives an actual Ability boost, but offers advantage on checks associated with the ability on top of a small a side benefit in some cases where they weren't oppressive.

[Zalabim]

There are items that set stat to X, where X is 20 or less, as well as where X is more than 20.

There are items that raise a stat by X, to a maximum of Y, where Y is 20 or less, as well as where Y is more than 20.

There are items that overlap majorly or entirely with the benefits of feats and class features, such as the Wand of the War Wizard for spell sniper, various items that grant resistance to damage of some type for barbarians and certain races, and items that take an action or bonus action to use like the cloak of invisibility, dancing sword, and scimitar of speed.

Beyond that, you can extrapolate that a magic item can do whatever you want a magic item to do. Want a gauntlets of the great weapon master? Go ahead. Tome of the Arcane Sniper on your reading list? Sure.

There is no design issue with the stat changing items. They may address a design need that you don't have. For example, maybe you have a party with two fighters, one Str 16, one Str 20, not because they chose to use ASI differently but because one rolled higher stats than the other. Now the party finds a couple belts of giant strength. Problem solved. Maybe you don't roll for stats, I don't, but rolling stats is still listed as a method of stat generation.

You may say the items aren't good for the characters they're intended for. I say the items are intended for the characters they're good for. If an item does exactly what its name says, that is a fine item. It's up to you whether it's useful or not. If there is an item that doesn't perform as it should, it's not these.

[ad_hoc]

Right, that's the intent. The problem is that it's too easy to become as strong as an ogre in other ways, so the item will frequently go those who aren't as interested in being as strong as an ogre.

So something might happen to someone's character that wasn't prescripted at character creation?

That sounds like a plus to me.

The thing is, magic items are not part of character creation or growth in the same way as they were in 3.x. In 5e you might end up with weird items for your characters because that is what you found. And then you try to make as best use of them as you can.

[Shaofoo]

Slight correction, the bracers are for boosting AC of unarmored characters, not necessarily those who can get AC without armor.

The point is that going by the logic of the thread the Bracers are useless because the guy that can use the most AC, the front line fighter, cannot use the Bracers because he already uses armor. Basically instead of giving it to another player and moving on and hoping for another drop he will sulk and moan because that item isn't something he can use. And that is not getting into the envy that the Dragon Sorcerer with max Dex might have as high an AC as a Shield using Fighter (both are at AC 20) which I again find ridiculous and the fact that anyone who thinks like that is the problem instead of the item.

The Gauntlets I see as the exact same thing, it isn't a broken item because the guy that can use Strength the most can't use it. It is a broken item for other reasons but the Fighter not being able to take advantage of the item is not one of them. Unless the group is full of Strength characters I would just give it to the guy that doesn't have Str even if the benefit is just higher Athletics checks and more carrying capacity, or just try to either sell or barter with the magic item, even offer it as tribute or curry favor with someone powerful. Just because you can't personally use the magic item doesn't make it useless to you.

[hacksnake]

Indeed. Like I said up thread, they are a callback to previous editions where they made sense, but the framework rules have changed since then and they don't fit very well.

That's your opinion and it seems like you keep stating it as fact when it's not.

I agree that the framework of the rules have changed and I also think the way ogre gauntlets fit into that framework makes a ton more sense than if they were +2 STR gauntlets whether or not they had some upper limit.

The entire rules framework is getting away from nickle & dime modifiers that you have to add up and replacing them with unstackable different equations (i.e. - AC).

The gauntlets & other items are a way to "change the equation" you use to calculate a stat instead of giving more options to add up bonuses. In the long run designing like this allows more space for items and less concern for the totally over the top gonzo broken levels of play that 3.5 got to.

They completely fit the rules framework. Much more so than some modifier to your base stat would. Then again, that's my opinion.

[Segev]

I believe you when you say that you feel that way, but I honestly don't understand it. What you call wasted investment, I call getting to play the character I want throughout the entire game and not just a little bit at the end.

I could see being annoyed if I'd been playing Muscles McStrong and somebody else got the Belt of Giant Strength, but the division of treasure is a matter between players, not the responsibility of the devs.

Ah, but you're playing Muscles McStrong, the 20 strength fighter, and she's playing Stan the Sturdy the 20-con Paladin, who has been pumping his constitution before getting around to strength. So he's only got a 14 in Strength and a 20 in Con. The party (rightly) points out that giving Stan the Belt of Giant Strength increases the party's total DPS more than giving it to you, so despite the DM deliberately putting an item in he thought would be perfect for your concept of "strongest guy in the room," the design of the item makes it better to give to somebody else. Who is now better than you at being the strongest guy in the room.


Or, to avoid this, the DM hands out two Belts of Giant Strength. Now Muscles and Stan are both at Strength 24! That's great, right? Except that Stan has more Con than Muscles, because he didn't waste points on Strength that got overwritten.

As people keep pointing out, you don't know when items will show up. What makes you think you'll spend the majority of the game without the item, rather than with it? Maybe it gets handed out just after you hit 20 in Strength, after you spent everything you could to race there, because the DM is trying to reward you early and uncap your boundary. But woops, the design of the 24-strength Belt says that it's still better to give it to Stan.



To reiterate: The problem with the design, which people who say they don't understand my position keep seeming to miss (since they never address it), is that if you care about the stat, it does less for you than if you do not. So much so that it can be honestly better to make somebody who doesn't care as much about the stat take the item because of the larger improvement to the party's overall capabilities.





As for the "+X, capped at Y" items, those would fix the design problem, actually, to a degree. Only if Muscles was within X of Y would Stan get more out of the item; it would be better for Muscles as long as he was X or more below Y.

It wouldn't fix it entirely, but for anything that has Y-X=20, it will always fix the problem (barring other ways for a PC to exceed 20).


As I've said, I appreciate the thematic nature of the "Accessory of Specific Creature's Statistic." It just rewards build choices exactly counter to those these items would be thematically appropriate to reward, given the choices and opportunity costs involved.

[Shaofoo]

As people keep pointing out, you don't know when items will show up. What makes you think you'll spend the majority of the game without the item, rather than with it? Maybe it gets handed out just after you hit 20 in Strength, after you spent everything you could to race there, because the DM is trying to reward you early and uncap your boundary. But woops, the design of the 24-strength Belt says that it's still better to give it to Stan.


Correction, you don't know IF the item will show up at all. You can have the item drop before you hit second level or you can go from level 1 to 20 and retire without the Gauntlets or belt dropping. There seems to be this assumption that the Gauntlets HAS to drop in the game as if there is some hidden rules that says so.



To reiterate: The problem with the design, which people who say they don't understand my position keep seeming to miss (since they never address it), is that if you care about the stat, it does less for you than if you do not. So much so that it can be honestly better to make somebody who doesn't care as much about the stat take the item because of the larger improvement to the party's overall capabilities.

So what about the Bracers of Defense then? Gives +2 to AC if you aren't wearing armor or a shield. It does nothing for anyone who wants to truly max out their AC which means plate and a shield. By your logic the Bracers are useless since if you are raising AC then you can't use the bracers.




As for the "+X, capped at Y" items, those would fix the design problem, actually, to a degree. Only if Muscles was within X of Y would Stan get more out of the item; it would be better for Muscles as long as he was X or more below Y.

It wouldn't fix it entirely, but for anything that has Y-X=20, it will always fix the problem (barring other ways for a PC to exceed 20).

Ioun Stones already does this, they raise a stat +2 but can't go above 20.



As I've said, I appreciate the thematic nature of the "Accessory of Specific Creature's Statistic." It just rewards build choices exactly counter to those these items would be thematically appropriate to reward, given the choices and opportunity costs involved.

That is only true if you have future knowledge that you know you will get the item. Getting the Gauntlets isn't a choice anymore than winning the lottery is a choice. There are a ton of magic items that can't be used that are good for other builds that are not yours or that you can't even use by yourself. Your logic stems from the Gauntlets being a certainty.

Like I said what about the Fighter with a magic sword he can't use because he is the wrong class? Would Muscles be jelly that Bob the Paladin got the sword because he was the right class? Would Muscles have decided to always be a Paladin if he knew that down the line he would get a super sword only for Paladins? That kind of building the character around the item thinking is something that I do not think is with the 5e design, especially considering that at no point are magic items part of the game (4e does have magic items as part of the game and that had the magic item section be in the PHB).

[krugaan]

Merry go round thread!

[Segev]

Correction, you don't know IF the item will show up at all. You can have the item drop before you hit second level or you can go from level 1 to 20 and retire without the Gauntlets or belt dropping. There seems to be this assumption that the Gauntlets HAS to drop in the game as if there is some hidden rules that says so. Doesn't change the core point to which you were responding. You don't know if or when; what if it shows up right as you hit 20 in the stat?


So what about the Bracers of Defense then? Gives +2 to AC if you aren't wearing armor or a shield. It does nothing for anyone who wants to truly max out their AC which means plate and a shield. By your logic the Bracers are useless since if you are raising AC then you can't use the bracers.If you're buying plate and a shield, and then "+3 plate" drops, you can sell your plate that was "only" 18 AC. If you're buying Str 20, and a Belt of 22 Str drops, you can't sell back the ASIs you invested and buy feats.

The bracers are clearly designed for people who are not armored. I mean, it can't be made more obvious. Is your assertion that Belts of Giant Strength are not designed for PCs who want to maximize their strength?

Recall that "while unarmored" is a stipulation for not a few class features. I don't know of any class features which say "if your Str is lower than X, unless it's raised above X by a magic item."


Ioun Stones already does this, they raise a stat +2 but can't go above 20.And it is better design. But the "can't go above 20" means that it's not an answer to the issue that the Belts of Giant Strength are the only way to break that barrier, and they're still rewarding build choices that, made without knowledge of the Belt's impending arrival, would be what somebody who wants the highest strength possible would make more than they reward making the choices to maximize one's strength.


That is only true if you have future knowledge that you know you will get the item. Getting the Gauntlets isn't a choice anymore than winning the lottery is a choice.This is flawed on two levels: 1) a level I've already analyzed and demonstrated, that the choices the POSSIBILITY of its presence creates the situation where making the build choices to maximize your stat actually reduce the reward of the item. That you keep focusing back on the Gauntlets and not the entire family, including the Belts, tells me that you're either not paying attention or are looking to find flaw with my arguments rather than to actually address their substance. This irks me.

The gauntlets are the LEAST problematic of them, because they won't get you as far as your own efforts CAN. So there's still reward for having invested ASIs in Strength; you can get up to a 20, rendering the Gauntlets moot.

2) The fact that a lottery has far lower chances than this does, and that you have far greater knowledge going in unless your DM is a total stranger to you such that you cannot predict his mindset nor goals.


There are a ton of magic items that can't be used that are good for other builds that are not yours or that you can't even use by yourself. Your logic stems from the Gauntlets being a certainty. Again, utterly false. See above. Then add in the additional point I've made repeatedly: if the solution to the items' problematic nature is to not use the item, then the item remains problematic and poorly designed.


Like I said what about the Fighter with a magic sword he can't use because he is the wrong class? Would Muscles be jelly that Bob the Paladin got the sword because he was the right class? Would Muscles have decided to always be a Paladin if he knew that down the line he would get a super sword only for Paladins? That kind of building the character around the item thinking is something that I do not think is with the 5e design, especially considering that at no point are magic items part of the game (4e does have magic items as part of the game and that had the magic item section be in the PHB).Muscles wasn't building with the desire to play a holy sword wielding knight, or he would have played a paladin.

Can you honestly not understand the difference between REWARDING building towards something by making it better or making being at least that good at it a threshold to get better, and just handing out the same reward regardless of whether you've worked towards it or not?

Do you truly not see why your example doesn't create the same issue? Muscles can't use that sword. Therefore, nobody is going to give it to him; Stan the Paladin will get it, because his build lets him use it. It rewards his build by giving him an item that improves it and helps him get closer to the ideal goal he had in mind.

If that sword gave you the ability to cast all of the Smite spells at will without having to prepare them nor spend any action at all to do so, and could be used by anybody proficient with martial weapons, suddnely, that sword is better to give to Muscles because Stan is able to cast Smite on his own, while Muscles isn't, so it improves the party's damage output more if you give it to Muscles than to Stan. Now Muscles is doing Stan's thing better than Stan because an item themed for Stan is just plain smarter to give to Muscles.

Do you see how THAT is a problem?

Because that's what the "Set at X" does. By disregarding what you've built before putting on the item, it rewards not having built towards its theme at all, since it entirely overwrites what your investment if you built towards it. Therefore, the item themed, in theory, for somebody built just like you is better to give to the guy who has nothing to do with your theme before he picks up the item.

That is flawed design, unless the goal isn't to reward the guy who builds for the theme in question but to make somebody else a better version of him. I don't think that's a good goal.

[SharkForce]

muscles mcstrong probably has save DCs based off of strength which the belt makes broken OP (no seriously, DC 20 strength save for the enemy wizard to avoid being disarmed of their components vs a bit of extra hit chance? uhhh... stan can go suck an egg for all i care)., and most probably makes more attacks per round than stan the sturdy, and probably has the proficiencies and possibly the feats to make use of a high strength score better than stan the sturdy.

also, in this particular situation, stan the sturdy is already providing enemies an excellent reason to focus him, meaning stan is already leveraging his toughness into tankiness, a party asset... while muscles getting DC 20 or 21 on battlemaster maneuvers or even more insane grapple and shove checks can put him into a situation where now his toughness also becomes tankiness, and actually provides some meaningful value to the party consistently. (but seriously, a battlemaster fighter with 24 strength will be disarming spellcasters of their focus with probably no chance for the enemy to resist... i don't care if someone else can get an extra +3 to hit half as much as i care about no-save-and-you-still-suck effects).

and on a side note, gauntlets of ogre power being better for high-strength warriors in earlier editions? are you kidding me?

second edition had the strength spell which lasted one hour per level and could put a high-strength warrior into the high % or even at 18/00 with relative ease. it was a level 2 spell in an edition where level 2 spell slots were relatively low value after a few levels (first had magic missile, shield, armour, enlarge, etc, third had fireball, lightning bolt, fly, haste, slow, etc... second had some nice spells for level 3 when you got them and monsters had crap saves, but once monster hit dice started getting high you needed some serious save penalties to have a chance of landing *anything* on a monster).

i dunno how you guys played 2nd edition, but for me by the time i got to about 6th or 7th level, a significant part of my level 2 spell slots are devoted to making those high strength fighters hit 18/00 or as close to it as i can get, and only the fighters that had strength as a second or third attribute were particularly excited about gauntlets of ogre power because the ones that put 18 into strength were going to get buffed by a long-lasting spell anyways.

[Shaofoo]

Doesn't change the core point to which you were responding. You don't know if or when; what if it shows up right as you hit 20 in the stat?

What if it doesn't? You can't have an honest discussion if all you can say is "but what if it does" when "but what if it doesn't" is not only also a possibility but more often than not what will most likely happen. it is just wishful thinking in the most literal sense.


If you're buying plate and a shield, and then "+3 plate" drops, you can sell your plate that was "only" 18 AC. If you're buying Str 20, and a Belt of 22 Str drops, you can't sell back the ASIs you invested and buy feats.

Good except I wasn't talking about +3 plate. That kind of deflect steers things away from my point


The bracers are clearly designed for people who are not armored. I mean, it can't be made more obvious. Is your assertion that Belts of Giant Strength are not designed for PCs who want to maximize their strength?

Yes, that is exactly it. The Gauntlets aren't for players who maxed strength any more than the Bracers are not for those who look to max out their armor in every way.


Recall that "while unarmored" is a stipulation for not a few class features. I don't know of any class features which say "if your Str is lower than X, unless it's raised above X by a magic item."

I don't get this, that would violate the no magic item clause that the game is founded upon if the class talks about a magic item. Magic items are not an inherent part of the game.


And it is better design. But the "can't go above 20" means that it's not an answer to the issue that the Belts of Giant Strength are the only way to break that barrier, and they're still rewarding build choices that, made without knowledge of the Belt's impending arrival, would be what somebody who wants the highest strength possible would make more than they reward making the choices to maximize one's strength.

And again the whole build the character around the item thing is still prevalent.


This is flawed on two levels: 1) a level I've already analyzed and demonstrated, that the choices the POSSIBILITY of its presence creates the situation where making the build choices to maximize your stat actually reduce the reward of the item. That you keep focusing back on the Gauntlets and not the entire family, including the Belts, tells me that you're either not paying attention or are looking to find flaw with my arguments rather than to actually address their substance. This irks me.

The gauntlets are the LEAST problematic of them, because they won't get you as far as your own efforts CAN. So there's still reward for having invested ASIs in Strength; you can get up to a 20, rendering the Gauntlets moot.

The Belts reward you as much as anyone else because they break the cap. You are as rewarded as much with them as any other character unless you are a level 20 Barbarian and only the first three tiers of belts. That you said you wasted ASI to buff strength is no better than saying I wasted on getting GWM and Polearm Mastery and all I get are magic short swords. Gauntlets actually are worse because they emulate something that one can be achieved, you can't be better than what the belts offer except in corner cases. Wearing belts is always a positive. If you want to talk about opportunity costs then you might as well say you can dump your strength to 8 because these belts and gauntlets might exist. If you fear such a situation then just always play low strength characters so you can feel good when you can get the max amount from the belts.

Getting the belts is a plus for everyone, that you feel that you need to redo the character after you get the belt is moot. it is still a badly designed item but not because the strength guy is now sad that he could've spent his starting score on dumping strength on better other stats.



2) The fact that a lottery has far lower chances than this does, and that you have far greater knowledge going in unless your DM is a total stranger to you such that you cannot predict his mindset nor goals.

The lottery is non zero, a DM that doesn't want the gauntlet or belt is zero. My point is that you can't predict it unless you can mindmeld with the DM. Also metagaming is bad.


Again, utterly false. See above. Then add in the additional point I've made repeatedly: if the solution to the items' problematic nature is to not use the item, then the item remains problematic and poorly designed.

And like I said before, a ton of magic items are problematic, Vecna's artifacts, Deck of Many Things, cursed items in general, granting free wishes, Iron Flask, etc. if you feel it is your holy quest to balance all items them more power to you but you can't tell me that ignoring items is not an option and yet the book is filled with such items unless you feel that all items are truly balanced and the gauntlet and belts is the only stain on an otherwise perfect record. Magic items are okay on a whole but the game expects you to not use items that do not agree with you.



Can you honestly not understand the difference between REWARDING building towards something by making it better or making being at least that good at it a threshold to get better, and just handing out the same reward regardless of whether you've worked towards it or not?

I don't reward based on the builds or players, I put magic items which I think would be thematic and appropriate to the game. If a melee only focused group storms an Archmage's tower they aren't going to find plate armor and greatswords as loot just because the team is melee only. If the player wants to work towards something then they will have to say so, he shouldn't get mad if the items he finds in random travel doesn't agree with him.


Do you truly not see why your example doesn't create the same issue? Muscles can't use that sword. Therefore, nobody is going to give it to him; Stan the Paladin will get it, because his build lets him use it. It rewards his build by giving him an item that improves it and helps him get closer to the ideal goal he had in mind.

Same deal, he can't use the gauntlet and he can't use the sword. Someone else will get it and Muscles will be where he started both times while someone else gets stronger. Just that the sword explicitly said that he can't use it.


If that sword gave you the ability to cast all of the Smite spells at will without having to prepare them nor spend any action at all to do so, and could be used by anybody proficient with martial weapons, suddnely, that sword is better to give to Muscles because Stan is able to cast Smite on his own, while Muscles isn't, so it improves the party's damage output more if you give it to Muscles than to Stan. Now Muscles is doing Stan's thing better than Stan because an item themed for Stan is just plain smarter to give to Muscles.

And would Stan feel jelly then? Like I said this is more of a social issue than a gameplay one.


Do you see how THAT is a problem?

Because that's what the "Set at X" does. By disregarding what you've built before putting on the item, it rewards not having built towards its theme at all, since it entirely overwrites what your investment if you built towards it. Therefore, the item themed, in theory, for somebody built just like you is better to give to the guy who has nothing to do with your theme before he picks up the item.

That is flawed design, unless the goal isn't to reward the guy who builds for the theme in question but to make somebody else a better version of him. I don't think that's a good goal.

I am not saying that set to X isn't problematic or flawed. I just want you to know that if your reaction to getting set to X is to say "Man I wish I didn't spend all those points on my build" then I don't think the problem can be wholly placed on the item, especially when the item in question isn't even told by the game itself.

You seem to come from an individualistic point of view, viewing each player as their own entity instead of the entire group and one will not affect the other. Muscles gaining smite powers is a bonus only to Muscles because Muscles is the only one that matters to Muscles, if Bob got higher damage sword then Muscles will be sad because Bob got better and Bob is not Muscles and Muscles only cares about Muscles and not Bob.

There is an underlying social problem that is exacerbated with certain items.

[ad_hoc]

This thread reminds me of people who fold T6o then get mad when the flop comes T66. It is backwards thinking.

Then again, I also see people complain that Wizards are just as good at fighting as Fighters because they have the same proficiency bonus to attacking.