Evening Odd Ability Scores

[VoxRationis]

So my girlfriend's current character, a TWF rogue, currently has a 17 in both Strength and Dexterity. Since she sometimes switches between TWF and two-handing a bastard sword, an extra +1 Strength would do really well for her in combat (potentially giving her +1 to attack and +2 to damage). We just finished a section of the campaign and the rewards for our characters are to be able to requisition enough magic items and miscellaneous equipment to get us up to 9000 gp. Is there a good, cheap way to get a +1 to a single ability score without leveling? I know about the various tomes, but those are way out of the price range.

Available books, as near as I can tell, are the core rulebooks, the PHB II, and Heroes of Battle. That sourcebook on incarnum is floating around somewhere, but I don't think either the DM or any of the players has given it a single thought and it might come across as munchkinly to open it specifically for this purpose.

[Zaq]

Why are her stats odd in the first place? Were they rolled, purchased with point-buy, or selected from an array?

Basically, depending on how the GM runs things, you might be able to make an argument for just shuffling one point from one stat into another. It'd be an explicit GM kindness rather than anything that has precedent in the rules, but odd stats don't do a hell of a lot in 3.5. (They're marginally more valuable in 4e, for example, since feats with stat prereqs always require odd stats and are usually fairly good, but that's a bit rarer in 3.5.)

Other than that, the actual rules don't provide too many ways to get odd stat bumps without leveling or tomes (or Wish). The actual rules don't provide for odd-numbered stat boosts, which is basically because they're a huge benefit to characters with odd stats and not a benefit to characters with even stats (whereas a +2 STR item is useful no matter whether you have an odd STR or an even STR to start). From a game design perspective, it kind of makes sense that you wouldn't want to allow for a class of items that would have a markedly different effect on someone starting with 16 STR versus someone starting with 17 STR (since those two characters are otherwise basically indistinguishable from others when it comes to making STR-based rolls, minor carrying capacity differences notwithstanding). The design point fails when you consider that the rules allow for odd-numbered stats at all (which is, at best, a legacy issue from when stats were determined by rolling 3d6), which is why I asked how those odd stats on your girlfriend's character came to be. (In contrast, Legend, a spinoff of 3.5, simply doesn't have odd stats at all, since they don't really improve the game much, and Legend is too well-balanced to mess around with rolling your stats randomly.)

I mean, trying to be semi-practical for a moment, if you get access to a casting of Wish, that will give you an inherent +1 to one score for potentially less gold than a tome, but Wish can get kinda messy at times, and many of the low-level ways of accessing it certainly come off as cheesy unless everyone is doing them.

[OldTrees1]

In a system where ability modifiers scale with every 2 ability points, +1 bonuses are generally poor design(0 gp or 4000 gp depending on the user). As such they are rare exceptions.
HD
Wish
Fiend of Corruption 1's Fiend Favor is +3 for a day and -3 whenever it is not +3.

The Good news is that 17 Dex is a prerequisite for Improved TWF(the last TWF feat worth taking).

[daremetoidareyo]

A scroll of planar ally to summon a kind efreet to grant you a wish in return for gold?

[VoxRationis]

For the record, we rolled our characters.

[noce]

Stat boosting items follow the general rule of X*X*1000 where X is the bonus.

At our table, we introduced the missing items at the cost they would have, so:
+1: 1000
+2: 4000
+3: 9000
+4: 16000
+5: 25000
+6: 36000

We do the same for competence bonuses to skills (with the proper price, obviously), to the point that I don't remember anymore which items exist in the rules and which have been introduced by our rules.

Really, forcing a player that rolled his stats to keep an odd score for at least four levels is bad.
Ask your DM if you can simply buy a +1 STR item for 1000 gp.

It even makes sense that such an item exists: most NPCs have 10 or 11 in every stat, and most NPCs are very poor and couldn't afford a +2 item, so crafting and selling +1 stat items is a sound business choice for a tradesman.

[Zancloufer]

I think there are some items that increases stats by an odd number.

Even if there wasn't there are rules for custom magic items. Also worth noting that quite a few items (Deflection bonuses to AC, enchantment bonuses to amour and weapons, Resistance save bonuses and stat booting items) follow the simple Bonus Squared * 1000 GP base cost formula. Just ask for +1 stat items for a cost similar to a +1 sword. If it's not RAW it's pretty darn close.

[Zanos]

Stat boosting items follow the general rule of X*X*1000 where X is the bonus.

At our table, we introduced the missing items at the cost they would have, so:
+1: 1000
+2: 4000
+3: 9000
+4: 16000
+5: 25000
+6: 36000

We do the same for competence bonuses to skills (with the proper price, obviously), to the point that I don't remember anymore which items exist in the rules and which have been introduced by our rules.

Really, forcing a player that rolled his stats to keep an odd score for at least four levels is bad.
Ask your DM if you can simply buy a +1 STR item for 1000 gp.

It even makes sense that such an item exists: most NPCs have 10 or 11 in every stat, and most NPCs are very poor and couldn't afford a +2 item, so crafting and selling +1 stat items is a sound business choice for a tradesman.
These do follow the formula, but I believe the MIC specifically recommends against making custom stat items in odd amounts because you get the same benefit of +1 modifier on some characters for much less gold.

Personally I don't really buy that argument because a 15 str character should have some advantage over a 14 strength character.

[Zancloufer]

These do follow the formula, but I believe the MIC specifically recommends against making custom stat items in odd amounts because you get the same benefit of +1 modifier on the same characters for much less gold.

Personally I don't really buy that argument because a 15 str character should have some advantage over a 14 strength character.

So a +1 Item on a 14 Strength Character is as good as a +2 item?

Though to be fair Strength is one of the few stats that you gain actual benefits at odd numbers on. Almost seems as if they where trying to punish characters with odd numbered ability scores. Not to mention all those feats that needed odd numbered ability scores. I mean you can flip it the other way; A +3 item costs more than a +2 one but on a character with an even ability score grants no real extra benefit.

[Zanos]

So a +1 Item on a 14 Strength Character is as good as a +2 item?
Same->Some. Damn keys are right next to each other.

Again, I don't agree with that argument, I'm fine with odd ability score bonus items. Although to be fair, people aren't going to chose to buy a +3 item if they have even ability scores.

[Twurps]

Same->Some. Damn keys are right next to each other.

Again, I don't agree with that argument, I'm fine with odd ability score bonus items. Although to be fair, people aren't going to chose to buy a +3 item if they have even ability scores.

And to fair, I wouldn't buy a +4 (over a +3) if I had odd ability scores :P
when rolling for stats, both are equally likely after all. (come to think of it, prolly not but close enough to not get into it)

[Zanos]

And to fair, I wouldn't buy a +4 (over a +3) if I had odd ability scores :P
Right, that's the point of WotCs justification. You got a +2 ability modifier increase for a lower price. Having an odd score lets you spend less for the same effect.

[Hish]

Rolling one higher lets you get the same benefit for less price. But rolling two higher gives you the same benefit for no price. Really, it makes sense that a 15 would be better than a 14, but still worse than a 16. So I'm all for the odd magic items.

[Khedrac]

There is one distinct advantage to the odd stats - you can ignore the first point of ability damage/drain.

Note, as for likelihood, whilst odd and even are equally likely with 3d6, with 4d6 keep best 3 there is a very slight bias towards even.

[Firechanter]

I once wanted to do my players a favour by offering +1 stat items, with the intention that you'd start with e.g. Str 16, bump to 17 at level 4, and buy a +1 so you get 18 total.

One player immediately exploited this by assigning odd values to _all_ stats, then evening them out with my cheap custom items.

If I ever run another game, I'd prolly rather tell them they can get one single +1 item per character, and all such items would use the same slot. It's really meant as a kickstart to get lowlevels off the ground, not an overall power creep.

[noce]

I once wanted to do my players a favour by offering +1 stat items, with the intention that you'd start with e.g. Str 16, bump to 17 at level 4, and buy a +1 so you get 18 total.

One player immediately exploited this by assigning odd values to _all_ stats, then evening them out with my cheap custom items.

If I ever run another game, I'd prolly rather tell them they can get one single +1 item per character, and all such items would use the same slot. It's really meant as a kickstart to get lowlevels off the ground, not an overall power creep.

Power Creep?
You're paying 6000 gp for this, a thing that will cost half your WBL by level 6, and is not doable at level 4.
There are many things that are more useful than a +1 INT for a fighter or a +1 STR for a wizard.

Players usually need three good stats, as high as possible. I would never do a wizard with 17 INT just to gain a point in STR or CHA.
Likewise, I would never do this on purpose to then buy 6000 gp of +1 stat items, when I could instead start with 18 INT and buy a +2 INT item for just 4000.

I fail to see how +1 items can bring to power creep, unless said player was a monk.
In that case, I fail to see how the words monk and power can be in the same sentence.

[Jay R]

In a current game, I will soon have an Ancestral Relic. I intend for one of its powers to be +1 INT when he is at INT 21, but when he reaches 8th level and has INT 22, I will pay to increase the item to +2 INT.

[Uncle Pine]

For the sake of completeness, Strength of My Enemy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/strengthofMyEnemy.htm) is a 2nd level PsyWar power that can grant a character an odd enhancement bonus to Strength. It also has the off benefit of draining it from your enemies without a save.

A psionic tattoo (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/items/psionicTattoos.htm) of the aforementioned power would cost 300 gp and provide the benefit of the power for 4 rounds (ML 4), once. This is not ideal, but the Getting Wired article (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20031225a) expands upon the subject allowing you to add a capacitor (1250 gp), a transducer (1250 gp) and a mental tap (800 gp) to make the tattoo more functional.
A capacitor makes the tattoo reusable, provided the capacitor is at full power. A 2nd level tattoo with a capacitor can be used once every 3 day.
A transducer allows you to recharge a capacitor using power points*. With a transducer, you can use a tattoo as many times you want per day as long as you have power points to fuel (6 pp/use in this case). *These can be provided by you, another character or even an item, so it works even though you don't have a pp reserve.
A mental tap allows you to activate the tattoo as a swift action instead of a standard one, so you can actually do something in the round you buff yourself.
A deluxe psionic tattoo of Strength of My Enemy with everything mentioned above ends up costing 3600 gp (well within your budget) and can provide up to a +8 enhancement bonus to Strength. Compared to other options, it's a good choice if you think you're going to have a good source of power points (whether it's a psionic character in the party, manifester shurikens, etc.).
Note that Strength of My Enemy applies only to a single natural of manufactured weapon, so it won't affect both your girlfriend's weapons. However, that can be fixed by buying a second tattoo (300 gp) and linking it via relay to the first one (50 gp, from the same article linked above).

[Firechanter]

I fail to see how +1 items can bring to power creep, unless said player was a monk.
In that case, I fail to see how the words monk and power can be in the same sentence.

He played a Cleric. And maybe he didn't have odd Int and Str - but so what? All four other stats help a Cleric out, so not even counting Wis (bc that was intended) he effectively improved his PB from 32 to 36-ish for a mere 3-4k investment.

[noce]

He played a Cleric. And maybe he didn't have odd Int and Str - but so what? All four other stats help a Cleric out, so not even counting Wis (bc that was intended) he effectively improved his PB from 32 to 36-ish for a mere 3-4k investment.

If instead his build would have started with 16 WIS, he would have improved his point-buy from 32 to 38 with a +2 WIS item for a 4k investment. Let alone going from a starting 18 to a 20.
Really, it's far less broken than you think.

[KillianHawkeye]

These do follow the formula, but I believe the MIC specifically recommends against making custom stat items in odd amounts because you get the same benefit of +1 modifier on some characters for much less gold.

Personally I don't really buy that argument because a 15 str character should have some advantage over a 14 strength character.

Sure, but I disagree that the advantage should have anything to do with magic items.

There are enough minor advantages to having an odd ability score already (higher carrying capacity, qualifying for various feats, being able to take a point of ability damage without suffering a drop in effectiveness, getting to the next higher bonus 4 levels sooner).

My problem with odd numbered ability score magic items is that they make no sense in the game world. These items should have the same relative effect no matter who puts them on, but they don't if you allow odd numbers. It's poor game design. You might say that having modifiers only increase on even numbers was poor game design to begin with, and you might be right, but adding more poor design isn't the right way to fix it.



On a semi-related note, one of the house rules my group has adopted is increasing the natural gain of feats to every odd level and ability score increases to every even level. This means our characters get stronger a little faster than normal (which is good for us because our games don't go into really high levels), but it also has the effect that having an odd ability score only lasts for two levels instead of four.

[noce]

My problem with odd numbered ability score magic items is that they make no sense in the game world. These items should have the same relative effect no matter who puts them on, but they don't if you allow odd numbers. It's poor game design.

Surely you wouldn't like to play in 2e or 5e.
In 5e a Belt of Hill Giant Strength sets your Strength to 21, no matter if you were a 20 STR Barbarian or a 10 STR Wizard.

[Kantolin]

My problem with odd numbered ability score magic items is that they make no sense in the game world. These items should have the same relative effect no matter who puts them on, but they don't if you allow odd numbers.

The reasons you stated beforehand are things you would notice they change. +1 Gloves of Ogre Power do make you stronger whether or not your base score is even or odd - you would immediately notice you could carry more, you could power attack if you couldn't, you have the advantage in arm wrestling over people who were as strong as you before (wherever that rule is, it just checks strength vs each other), yadda.

You also probably hit a little harder, just not enough to result in an extra +1 to damage. Which is actually okay, since due to the way combat works it's probably harder to directly quantity 'how much damage you do', while it's really easy to quantify 'how much can you lift'. There's still no question in-game (or out of game, for that matter) that Frank(str 15) is stronger than Sarah(str 14), nor is there a question that the +1 gloves of ogre power in fact make both stronger than when they weren't wearing them.

(In fact, from an in-game perspective, I'd personally say that 'carrying capacity' (Or maybe arm wrestling) is the aspect people would immediately notice first. You'd have to go do a ton of weapon attacks against identical foes in identical circumstances to come to the conclusion that Frank is stronger than Sarah with these gloves yadda, while 'This is hard for me to lift but Frank can lift it easily' is simple, and 'Hey I can carry as much as Frank now these gloves are awesome' is just as simple. Plus if they muscle-bulk you out that'd be immediately noticeable regardless. It's more out of game and from a meta level that people think otherwise.)

(...Especially when two of those goblins you fought might have had dodge, and that one just naturally had a high dex, and that one's leather armour was magical even though the party didn't notice this, so boy it looks like when they both have the +1 str gloves on, /Sarah/ is better at combat than /Frank/.)

[Twurps]

There are enough minor advantages to having an odd ability score already (higher carrying capacity, qualifying for various feats, being able to take a point of ability damage without suffering a drop in effectiveness, getting to the next higher bonus 4 levels sooner).

My problem with odd numbered ability score magic items is that they make no sense in the game world. These items should have the same relative effect no matter who puts them on, but they don't if you allow odd numbers. It's poor game design. You might say that having modifiers only increase on even numbers was poor game design to begin with, and you might be right, but adding more poor design isn't the right way to fix it.


First you say there's all king of benefits from an uneven score, but then you state +1 items shouldn't exist because they have no effect in some cases. Isn't that a contradiction.

Further: Items don't have the same effect on every person. Some build are much better served by a +2 something than others. Heck: a +2 strength for a THF fighter with 14 strength (increased to 16) gives only 1 extra damage. the same +2 item for a THF figher with 12 strenght gives 2 extra damage. Items don't have the same relative effect as is, is my point.

[Firechanter]

If instead his build would have started with 16 WIS, he would have improved his point-buy from 32 to 38 with a +2 WIS item for a 4k investment. Let alone going from a starting 18 to a 20.
Really, it's far less broken than you think.

And I said before that I wasn't even counting Wis because a Cleric is expected to max that.
I actually still have his char sheet saved in my mailbox. His starting stats were 13 12 13 12 16 15
At level 4 bump to Wis 17
He spent his level 4 WBL on +1 each to Str, Cha, Wis, Con.
So effectively his stats inc. items at lv 4 were 14 12 14 12 18 16

The same stats with a single +2 item instead of 4 +1s would be worth a PB38.
Okay, in the long run the Str score might have bitten him in the arse. (The game never got that far)

All I'm saying is, if you plan to allow +1 items (or any odd boosters) in your game, consider the possible consequences, and think about imposing limitations. As I said before, if I were to do that again, I'd limit these items to one per customer.

[KillianHawkeye]

Surely you wouldn't like to play in 2e or 5e.
In 5e a Belt of Hill Giant Strength sets your Strength to 21, no matter if you were a 20 STR Barbarian or a 10 STR Wizard.

That's fine because it's a completely different design paradigm. It sets your Strength to a specific value rather than increasing it by a specific amount.


First you say there's all king of benefits from an uneven score, but then you state +1 items shouldn't exist because they have no effect in some cases. Isn't that a contradiction.

No, I didn't say they have no effect in some cases, I said that the relative effect is not always the same. Everyone who gains +1 Strength gets better at lifting and arm wrestling, but only half the people get noticeably better at fighting, grappling, jumping, or swimming.


And let's all just be honest for a minute here, okay? Having a slightly higher carrying capacity or a tiny buffer against ability damage are nice and all, but when people buy magic items to increase their ability scores they're doing it to improve their modifiers. That's the first and probably only useful point of measurement for these items, and that's why I have a problem with them acting in an inconsistent manner.

Of course, I'm not trying to change your minds. You've already made up your minds, and that's fine. I mainly posted here for whoever else is reading this so they hear both points of view (for and against odd numbered magic items).

[Dagroth]

While a +1 Stat Item is relatively cheap, a +3 Stat Item is costly enough that allowing it (or a +5 Stat Item) shouldn't be a problem.

[Twurps]

While a +1 Stat Item is relatively cheap, a +3 Stat Item is costly enough that allowing it (or a +5 Stat Item) shouldn't be a problem.

Which is exactly why I don't see a problem with +1 items either.
At higher levels: everybody and his pet walks around with >+2 items on every useful stat. So +1's are only going to be used at non-useful stats where they aren't an issue, or (very) low level play, where I don't see the issue either.

If anything, I'd be 'nice things for melee' as they are usually more MAD, and low level is where you haven't had the opportunity to fine tune your rolled scores through level up.



Of course, I'm not trying to change your minds. You've already made up your minds, and that's fine. I mainly posted here for whoever else is reading this so they hear both points of view (for and against odd numbered magic items).

I haven't made up my mind either way actually. We've always played without +1 items, and I've never experiences this as an issue. I don't think I would advocate introducing these items in our games either, just because the impact is too small to be bothered. What I am doing is evaluating the argument from both sides, and commenting on the ones I don't find particularly convincing.

You're right of course that increasing to an even number has far greater value than increasing to an odd number, but that's poor game design overall if you ask me, and not a good reason to ban +1 items.

+1's are already a thing. You get them at level up. Al the argument against +1 items can be made for those level ups as well. It's not fair somebody with all even stats (good character design) should be punished at his lvl4 level up compared to someone with some odd scores.
Again an example of the same boost not meaning the same to different people. The game is full of it with or without +1 items.

So I don't find that argument very convincing, and since it's been the main argument against +1's, I'm not convinced against the items.


I can argue the other way too if you like. I'd just be something like: The are not allowed, or the designers would have included them. Period.
It's not a strong argument either, but it's the best one I've heard so far, as any reasoning behind it falls apart quickly.

[nyjastul69]

+1 ability enhancements don't break the game. Whether they are good or poor game design doesn't matter to me. I wouldn't classify them as poor game design myself though. I do understand why others do however. I think any issues with +1 ability enhancements are making mountains out of mole hills.

[Andezzar]

That's fine because it's a completely different design paradigm. It sets your Strength to a specific value rather than increasing it by a specific amount.Yes it is a different paradigm, but that paradigm has the same issues as odd ability bonuses, only worse. Not only are there some people that benefit relatively little from the item and others benefit more, the range of possible benefits is much larger with setting ability scores, and on top of that the item can even be a debuff.
It's been a long time since I played 2e and I haven't looked at 5e yet, but I bet finding a market value for such items is a lot more difficult than finding it for items with odd ability bonuses.

[noce]

It's been a long time since I played 2e and I haven't looked at 5e yet, but I bet finding a market value for such items is a lot more difficult than finding it for items with odd ability bonuses.

Indeed, in 5e market prices for magic items aren't listed. Not only, they're not even suggested.

[DarkSoul]

The way I see it, the fighter that Joe's playing with 13 Strength becomes noticeably more effective with a +1 Strength item. He gets +1 to hit and damage at least, along with some skill bonuses and increased carrying capacity.

Frank, with the 16 Strength, doesn't get the same bonus from a +1 Strength item. Why should he have to pay several times more gold than Joe for the same combat benefit? Because he's stronger to begin with?

All characters gain the same combat benefits from even-value stat boost items, and the game is set up that way in general (two points of increase in an ability score raises the effectiveness of that stat for any character)

[nyjastul69]

The way I see it, the fighter that Joe's playing with 13 Strength becomes noticeably more effective with a +1 Strength item. He gets +1 to hit and damage at least, along with some skill bonuses and increased carrying capacity.

Frank, with the 16 Strength, doesn't get the same bonus from a +1 Strength item. Why should he have to pay several times more gold than Joe for the same combat benefit? Because he's stronger to begin with?

All characters gain the same combat benefits from even-value stat boost items, and the game is set up that way in general (two points of increase in an ability score raises the effectiveness of that stat for any character)

A wand of magic missile doesn't increase every single wizard's efficacy equally. Very, very few items ever affect any class, let alone build, equally, why make an exception for stat boosters? It is not poor game design. It is not unbalanced. It is not broken.

[Andezzar]

Don't forget that casting stats have a significant bonus for each +1 up to 19.

[Uncle Pine]

A wand of magic missile doesn't increase every single wizard's efficacy equally. Very, very few items ever affect any class, let alone build, equally, why make an exception for stat boosters? It is not poor game design. It is not unbalanced. It is not broken.

Actually, a wand of magic missile works exactly the same for the vast majority of wizards because any given wand has a fixed CL. The amount of wizards with abilities that specifically improve the uses of wands and/or magic missiles are few and far between, making this a bad example. It would be like trying to justify the existence of odd stat boosters because magical swords and axes can be used less or more efficiently by different types of fighters.

[nyjastul69]

Don't forget that casting stats have a significant bonus for each +1 up to 19.

This is an excellent point that I hadn't thought about. This makes me reconsider my opinion on the matter.


Actually, a wand of magic missile works exactly the same for the vast majority of wizards because any given wand has a fixed CL. The amount of wizards with abilities that specifically improve the uses of wands and/or magic missiles are few and far between, making this a bad example. It would be like trying to justify the existence of odd stat boosters because magical swords and axes can be used less or more efficiently by different types of fighters.

If said Wizard didn't ban that school, sure. Some Wizard's ban that school. As I said, it won't apply equally across all Wizard's.

[Elkad]

Stat boosting items follow the general rule of X*X*1000 where X is the bonus.

At our table, we introduced the missing items at the cost they would have, so:
+1: 1000
+2: 4000
+3: 9000
+4: 16000
+5: 25000
+6: 36000

We do the same for competence bonuses to skills (with the proper price, obviously), to the point that I don't remember anymore which items exist in the rules and which have been introduced by our rules.

Really, forcing a player that rolled his stats to keep an odd score for at least four levels is bad.
Ask your DM if you can simply buy a +1 STR item for 1000 gp.

It even makes sense that such an item exists: most NPCs have 10 or 11 in every stat, and most NPCs are very poor and couldn't afford a +2 item, so crafting and selling +1 stat items is a sound business choice for a tradesman.

I use this as well. It's so minor it isn't worth pursuing.
Say MinM@@xxer the Fighter starts with a 17 str. At 3rd he picks up +1 Str gauntlets. At 4th he's going to put a point in Str and buy the +2 item anyway, so he benefits on his primary stat for ONE level.
It happens a few more times on the way to 20, but when the items cap out at +6, he'll ultimately end up behind the guy who sacrificed elsewhere to start with an 18.

[Dagroth]

As for the "it doesn't benefit everyone equally" argument.

Two characters:
One: 13 13 13 14 14 14
Two: 12 14 12 16 12 16

At 4th level, Character 1 does the smart thing and put a stat point in Con, then buys four +1 enhancing items and a +1 armor (5000gp)
Character 2 puts a stat point in Con, then buys a +1 Con item and a +2 Dex item (5000gp)
One: 14 14 14 14 16 14
Two: 12 14 12 18 14 16

At 8th level, Character 1 puts a stat point into Con, sells one of the +1 items (+500gp) and buys a +4 Con item & a +2 Dex item (total 19,500gp)
Character 2 sells the +1 Con item (+500gp) and buys a +3 Con item, puts a stat point into Str and buys a +3 Str Item and a +1 weapon. (total 19,500gp)
One: 14, 14, 14, 16, 20, 14
Two: 14, 14, 12, 20, 16, 16

This goes on, obviously, yet both characters gain relatively equally from the existence of +odd number bonus items.

[Jay R]

Yes it is a different paradigm, but that paradigm has the same issues as odd ability bonuses, only worse. Not only are there some people that benefit relatively little from the item and others benefit more, the range of possible benefits is much larger with setting ability scores, and on top of that the item can even be a debuff.
It's been a long time since I played 2e and I haven't looked at 5e yet, but I bet finding a market value for such items is a lot more difficult than finding it for items with odd ability bonuses.

It's a paradigm far more different than you seem to realize.

In most 2e games I've played, finding a market value for any magic item is impossible, because there is no market. You will never buy or sell an item, and the only items you ever get are either loot or items you make yourself.

[DarkSoul]

As for the "it doesn't benefit everyone equally" argument.

Two characters:
One: 13 13 13 14 14 14
Two: 12 14 12 16 12 16

At 4th level, Character 1 does the smart thing and put a stat point in Con, then buys four +1 enhancing items and a +1 armor (5000gp)
Character 2 puts a stat point in Con, then buys a +1 Con item and a +2 Dex item (5000gp)
One: 14 14 14 14 16 14
Two: 12 14 12 18 14 16

At 8th level, Character 1 puts a stat point into Con, sells one of the +1 items (+500gp) and buys a +4 Con item & a +2 Dex item (total 19,500gp)
Character 2 sells the +1 Con item (+500gp) and buys a +3 Con item, puts a stat point into Str and buys a +3 Str Item and a +1 weapon. (total 19,500gp)
One: 14, 14, 14, 16, 20, 14
Two: 14, 14, 12, 20, 16, 16

This goes on, obviously, yet both characters gain relatively equally from the existence of +odd number bonus items.What does any of this have to do with the fact that a character with an odd ability score gains a significant boost that a character with an even score doesn't? Using Con as the example, 1,000 gp gets the guy with a 13 Con a +1 bonus on his fort save and an extra hit point per level, along with all the other boosts that may or may not be relevant. How much of a boost does the guy with a 14 Con get from buying the same item? None, it's completely worthless to them. They have to spend 4 times the gold for the same benefit. With even-value items only, everyone is guaranteed to receive the benefit, and everyone spends the same amount of gold. Like it or not, it's fair to all characters, whereas odd bonuses only benefit those with odd scores.

[Fitz10019]

One could limit the effectiveness of +1 items, that they can't raise a score above 18. That would aim it more toward MAD classes for boosting primary stats.

[Andezzar]

Assuming that a character will put all his ability score increases into one stat, the character with an odd starting stat will get the significant benefit (higher ability modifier) from the odd boost item on levels 1-3 (unlikely because of WBL), 8-11, 16-19, whereas the character starting with an even ability score will benefit from an odd boosting item on levels 4-7, 12-15, 20. So there is not much difference.

If a character also puts inherent bonuses on that ability, starting even is better because you end up with an even bonus at level 20 (+5 from level, +5 inherent bonus, +6 enhancement bonus)

[KillianHawkeye]

+1's are already a thing. You get them at level up. Al the argument against +1 items can be made for those level ups as well. It's not fair somebody with all even stats (good character design) should be punished at his lvl4 level up compared to someone with some odd scores.

This is faulty reasoning because there's a big difference between a permanent or semi-permanent increase and one that you can take off and give to someone else. That's the entire crux of my argument. An item that can be taken from Jim and given to Bob should do the same thing for both of them.

This is why the wearable stat boosters only come in even numbered bonuses while other, more permanent boosts such as from the tomes/manuals or from the wish spell aren't limited the same way. The designers of the game made a conscious decision to treat wearable items differently, because they ARE different. Really, functionally different.

On a related note, see also that bull's strength and similar spells were changed between 3e and 3.5 to be a fixed +4 to the ability score (rather than a random amount which could be odd or even). It's so that the spells operated in a more consistent manner.

I'm not saying you can't disagree with the reasoning of the game's creators, but I do expect people to understand that there are strong, valid reasons having to do with consistency for why odd-valued ability items aren't part of the intended design.

[Elkad]

What does any of this have to do with the fact that a character with an odd ability score gains a significant boost that a character with an even score doesn't? Using Con as the example, 1,000 gp gets the guy with a 13 Con a +1 bonus on his fort save and an extra hit point per level, along with all the other boosts that may or may not be relevant. How much of a boost does the guy with a 14 Con get from buying the same item? None, it's completely worthless to them. They have to spend 4 times the gold for the same benefit. With even-value items only, everyone is guaranteed to receive the benefit, and everyone spends the same amount of gold. Like it or not, it's fair to all characters, whereas odd bonuses only benefit those with odd scores.

And the next time they gain a stat point, the guy who started with even stats benefits from that odd-numbered bonus item and the guy with odd stats doesn't.

It's a wash.

[Dagroth]

What does any of this have to do with the fact that a character with an odd ability score gains a significant boost that a character with an even score doesn't? Using Con as the example, 1,000 gp gets the guy with a 13 Con a +1 bonus on his fort save and an extra hit point per level, along with all the other boosts that may or may not be relevant. How much of a boost does the guy with a 14 Con get from buying the same item? None, it's completely worthless to them. They have to spend 4 times the gold for the same benefit. With even-value items only, everyone is guaranteed to receive the benefit, and everyone spends the same amount of gold. Like it or not, it's fair to all characters, whereas odd bonuses only benefit those with odd scores.


And the next time they gain a stat point, the guy who started with even stats benefits from that odd-numbered bonus item and the guy with odd stats doesn't.

It's a wash.

Exactly as Elkad said.

Characters who start with all even numbers in stats get no benefit at all from the +1 to a stat at level 4. Characters who have an odd number in their stat gain a huge benefit from the +1 to a stat at level 4.

So how is that any real difference between who benefits from a +1 to a stat item? In fact, the person with all even stats gains more benefit from a +1 stat item at level 4 than the guy with one odd stat does.

I showed that, in the long term, +1, +3 & +5 stat items tend to balance themselves out over the course of a character's career... precisely because of the Stat Boosts that they get every four levels.

If you have a 16 Str and you're only worried about Str, then at 4th level you put your stat point in and buy a +1 item. Now you've got an 18 Str. Then at 8th level, you put your stat point in and either buy a +2 item or upgrade the enchantment to a +2. Now you've got a 20 Str. At 12th level, you put your stat point in and upgrade to a +3 item. Now you've got a 22 Str. At 16th level you've got a 24 Str and at 20th level you've got a 24 Str (with a +5 Item). If you get a +5 tome, then you upgrade to a +6 item and you've got a 30 Str.

There's no "it's unbalanced towards someone with odd stats", except maybe at really low levels. The character stat boosts at every 4 levels really makes the odd number enhancements useful for everyone.

And if you don't like how "good" a +1 stat item is (remember, it's just as good for someone who puts their +1 level bonus on an even stat), then don't allow it... only allow the +3 & +5 items.

[OldTrees1]

Pause for a moment:

Let us enumerate the benefits of the +2N+1 Belt and the +2N+2 Belt. Here I will use the +1 and +2 items.

The +1 Belt gives a +1 vs ability damage while the +2 Belt gives a +2 vs ability damage
The +1 Belt gives a +1 for prerequisites(DM permitting) and the +2 Belt gives a +2 for prerequisites(DM permitting)
Both give a +1 ability modifier to those that would use the item (I have a feeling I will have to justify this last claim, but for now roll with it.) 15+1 is +1 mod, 15+2 is +1 mod, & 14+2 is +1 mod.

Minor mitigation of ability damage is valuable, but nowhere near thousands of gold. The aid to qualifying for prerequisites is highly DM dependant and might not even exist without a houserule. If that enumeration is correct then, since the majority of the value of the belt is in the ability modifier, the odd bonus items are more valuable than extending the even item's cost equation would predict. As such the odd bonus items would care a slightly higher cost(if the even bonus items are priced correctly and price was based on value).

But now let me back up and defend my claim that "the +1 Belt grants a +1 ability modifier to those that would use it". Some may see this as self-evident but I should offer some support considering how much weigh it is carrying.

I have a Holy Avenger. It can be wielded by Fighters and Paladins alike. I am selling the Holy Avenger, the price I can set for the item depends on its value. The Fighters would not pay more than roughly 8K gp for it since it is just a +2 sword for them. However the Paladins would be willing to pay more than 90K gp for the +4 Holy sword part alone. So would I sell it to a Paladin for 8K just because that is how the Fighter values it? No, there is a market that would readily buy it at the higher price because they would gain more value from it. Thus everyone that would use the Holy Avenger (Paladins) would value it slightly more than a +5 Holy sword.


Of course that would be for a perfect game. Inflating the WBL of a character tends to help the weaker classes more than the stronger ones.

[noce]

All of you miss the long run thing.
If I'm willingly start a Fighter at 15 STR instead of 16 STR then I'm voluntarily nerfing myself.
What I gain from +2 to another stat is not as valuable.
Let's assume odd stat items exist. Let's not include inherent bonuses.



At lvls 1-2 I'm worse than a 16 STR Fighter.
At lvl 3 I'm even, but the other guy has a +1 weapon and I don't, so actually I'm worse.
At lvls 4-7 the other guy goes to 17 STR and with a +1 STR item goes to 18, I go to 16 STR and could by a +2 item to go to 18. I'm on par, but with significantly less wealth, so actually I'm worse.
At lvl 8 he goes 18 STR, 20 with that +2 item, while I have 17 STR and have to buy a +3 item to reach 20. Again, less wealth, I'm worse.
At lvl 9 he can afford a +4 item and goes to 22, while I'm stuck at 20 STR. He expended more than me, but for a higher benefit, so I'm worse.
At lvls 10-11 I buy a +5 item to reach 22 STR, that's 9000 gp more fore the same benefit so, you could guess, I'm worse.
At lvl 12-15 the guy goes to 19, why not buy a +5 item to go to 24. Meanwhile, I get to 18 and could buy a +6 item to reach 24. Same modifier for 11000 gp more, I'm worse.
At lvl 16-19 the guy goes to 20 and buys a +6 item, 26 STR and I cannot go that high. I'm worse.
At lvl 20 I finally catch up. Well, he could sell his +6 item for a +5 now, but let's turn a blind eye.


Starting intentionally with a lower stat in your main stat doesn't benefit you in any way at any point of your career.
I won't bother to do the same for a secondary stat.

[weckar]

Keep in mind: Odd ability scores can be INCREDIBLY useful! They provide a bit of a buffer against ability damage/drain. Especially for Constitution this can be a godsend.

[Dagroth]

Keep in mind: Odd ability scores can be INCREDIBLY useful! They provide a bit of a buffer against ability damage/drain. Especially for Constitution this can be a godsend.

Other than Hellfire Warlock, ability damage/drain is almost always a random roll so it's a 50-50 shot if your odd number will matter. If you get hit for 8 points of drain, you've lost just as much as someone with an even number.

[Psyren]

One of the things 5e did that I liked was that stat increases were either +2 to a single stat or +1 to each of two different stats. I wonder - would it be broken if we brought that into 3.5/PF? Maybe with a companion rule that if you use the +2 option, your next +2 had to be to a different stat?


Same->Some. Damn keys are right next to each other.

*looks down at keyboard*

wut

[Dagroth]

One of the things 5e did that I liked was that stat increases were either +2 to a single stat or +1 to each of two different stats. I wonder - would it be broken if we brought that into 3.5/PF? Maybe with a companion rule that if you use the +2 option, your next +2 had to be to a different stat?

You mean for the 4th level etc. stat increases? Do they have the "your next +2 has to be a different stat" rule?

[Psyren]

You mean for the 4th level etc. stat increases? Do they have the "your next +2 has to be a different stat" rule?

They don't, but that's because 5e has bounded accuracy where PC stats have a hard cap (20 I think?) - and also, you have to choose between stat boosts and feats in 5e. Since neither of those are the case in 3.P, I proposed that addition as sort of a soft cap.

[Elkad]

Same->Some. Damn keys are right next to each other.




*looks down at keyboard*

wut

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/KB_United_States_Dvorak.svg/1280px-KB_United_States_Dvorak.svg.png

[Psyren]

I've never seen that kind of keyboard before; I've seen QWERTY and AZERTY but not that one!

[noce]

One of the things 5e did that I liked was that stat increases were either +2 to a single stat or +1 to each of two different stats. I wonder - would it be broken if we brought that into 3.5/PF?

Well, you have to pick BETWEEN stat or feat.
And you just don't get either if you multiclass.
I just hate these things so much.

[Elkad]

I've never seen that kind of keyboard before; I've seen QWERTY and AZERTY but not that one!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvorak_Simplified_Keyboard

It's nice. I spent a couple months learning it, was liking it a lot. Then I got my first IT job, which involved using other people's keyboards all day. Switching back and forth is a giant pain in the butt, so I went back to qwerty.

[Psyren]

Well, you have to pick BETWEEN stat or feat.
And you just don't get either if you multiclass.
I just hate these things so much.

Oh I meant without that limitation (hence my supplemental rule). In 5e a stat boost might be worth a feat, but definitely not in 3.P.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvorak_Simplified_Keyboard

It's nice. I spent a couple months learning it, was liking it a lot. Then I got my first IT job, which involved using other people's keyboards all day. Switching back and forth is a giant pain in the butt, so I went back to qwerty.

Weird, and even the article can't agree on how useful it is... but I learned something, thank you.

[Zanos]

*looks down at keyboard*

wut
Got 'em coach.

I'm not actually using a DVORAK keyboard (although I knew they existed). I was just making a joke about a and o being on pretty much opposite sides on the standard QWERTY.

[KillianHawkeye]

If you get hit for 8 points of drain, you've lost just as much as someone with an even number.

Change "drain" to "increase" and "lost" to "gained", and this is the most straightforward explanation for why the ability-boosting magic items don't come in odd-numbered varieties I could possibly make.

[bean illus]

Y'all spend half your time creating infinite power loops, and the other half hijacking some thread because +1 might break the game.

I don't see a problem.

[KillianHawkeye]

Y'all spend half your time creating infinite power loops, and the other half hijacking some thread because +1 might break the game.

You'll probably find that these are two mostly separate groups of people.

[Dagroth]

Change "drain" to "increase" and "lost" to "gained", and this is the most straightforward explanation for why the ability-boosting magic items don't come in odd-numbered varieties I could possibly make.

The statement:
"+1 stat at 4th level unfairly benefits people with odd numbered stats compared to people with all even numbered stats."

Is no different from the statement:
"+1 stat items unfairly benefit people with odd numbered stats compared to people with all even numbered stats."

But when you combine the two:
"Having both +1 stat bonus items and +1 to a stat at 4th level unfairly benefits people with all even numbered stats."

Oh wait... none of those statements are true! I proved it with math! Every 4 levels, the balance swings back and forth. In some cases, it's even meaningless since the character gains practically no benefit from increasing a dump stat.

[KillianHawkeye]

The statement:
"+1 stat at 4th level unfairly benefits people with odd numbered stats compared to people with all even numbered stats."

Is no different from the statement:
"+1 stat items unfairly benefit people with odd numbered stats compared to people with all even numbered stats."

But when you combine the two:
"Having both +1 stat bonus items and +1 to a stat at 4th level unfairly benefits people with all even numbered stats."

Oh wait... none of those statements are true! I proved it with math! Every 4 levels, the balance swings back and forth. In some cases, it's even meaningless since the character gains practically no benefit from increasing a dump stat.

First of all, that's not how math works. You can't say "A = B" and "A + B = False" and act like you've proven something, because you haven't.

Secondly, those two statements aren't actually equal. One is about having an item that you can wear and remove at will and even share with your friends. The other is about intrinsic character growth.

Third, all of that has nothing to do with my objections to having magic items that increase ability scores by an odd number. I honestly do not care if it balances itself out over time, because that's irrelevant.

But, as I've said before, I'm not trying to convince you. You've already made up your mind. My posts are for anyone reading this who is still undecided, but I think there's really nothing left to say about it. I wanted to make sure my side of the argument was represented, and I've done that. There's more than enough on both sides of the issue for people to make an educated decision.

[Andezzar]

So what about other items that only grant a benefit under certain conditions (like metamagic rods)? They would have significantly different value to characters who can benefit from them (spellcasters) and those that can't (everyone else), yet everyone has to pay the same price for them, or gets the same money back when sold. Would you ban those items too?

From a monetary standpoint such items have the same value for everyone, so there I see no inherent imbalance for allowing items that can be used by some characters effectively and not so effectively (or not at all) by others.

[OldTrees1]

So what about other items that only grant a benefit under certain conditions (like metamagic rods)? They would have significantly different value to characters who can benefit from them (spellcasters) and those that can't (everyone else), yet everyone has to pay the same price for them, or gets the same money back when sold. Would you ban those items too?

From a monetary standpoint such items have the same value for everyone, so there I see no inherent imbalance for allowing items that can be used by some characters effectively and not so effectively (or not at all) by others.

Interesting argument to bring up. Did you notice I used the same argument (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21801588&postcount=46) to explain why +1/+3/+5 Belts should cost more than 1000 * X2gp? Although I used the infinitely more flavorful Holy Avenger instead of a Metamagic Rod in my argument.

[BeerMug Paladin]

It never occurred to me to have magic items available with an odd ability bonus on them. But I like the idea. If I ever run another game in this system, I think I'll make it standard. Maybe it will encourage the players to share items amongst each other as they level up. Plus I think having a +1 item seem like a notable difference to some characters and a negligible difference to other characters makes magical items more enigmatic. (Like the magic phases in or out of potency for individuals based on some criteria unknown to the actual people in the system. They just discover it's not working as well as it used to, or works unexpectedly better than it did before. Time to trade gear.)

But I'm way more on the roleplay side of things than the simulation side of things. I'm the person who makes unoptimized, silly messes at the game table to exemplify background ideas I find interesting. I understand that the forums largely do not work that way with analysis of ideas.

As an aside, I have run with a house rule to have characters spend 2 ability score points on the levels divisible by four instead of one. The only difference is those points must be spent on different ability scores. The players seemed to enjoy it and it never seemed game breaking.

[Andezzar]

Interesting argument to bring up. Did you notice I used the same argument (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21801588&postcount=46) to explain why +1/+3/+5 Belts should cost more than 1000 * X2gp? Although I used the infinitely more flavorful Holy Avenger instead of a Metamagic Rod in my argument.There is an argument to by made that economics should generally work differently, but as long as the sell price is simply 0,5*market price, there is no reason to modify the sell price of items that are only useful to a small number of people.

The Holy Avenger is not a +5 longsword in the hands of a paladin, but a +5 cold iron that allows him to use Greater Dispel Magic at will. According to the magic item guidelines that is
Longsword: 15 gp
Masterwork: 300 gp
Cold Iron: 315 gp
+7 2000*7² (+5, holy)
Greater Dispel Magic cast by a bard(only one of three options) 5*9*1800 gp/3
=125630 gp

So the Holy Avenger is actually a bit cheaper than a similar item usable by everyone. The difference is even greater if you assume that Greater Dispel Magic was cast by a wizard or cleric (6*11*1800 gp/3)

My point was in other cases the market price is not determined by how many different people can use the item, but only how useful it can by to the right person. So there is no reason to change that for odd ability boosts.


Plus I think having a +1 item seem like a notable difference to some characters and a negligible difference to other characters makes magical items more enigmatic. (Like the magic phases in or out of potency for individuals based on some criteria unknown to the actual people in the system. They just discover it's not working as well as it used to, or works unexpectedly better than it did before. Time to trade gear.)
the "problem" is that identify takes care of the mystery, if you invest in an artificer's monocle, you don't even haver to carry lots of pearls around.

[OldTrees1]

My point was in other cases the market price is not determined by how many different people can use the item, but only how useful it can by to the right person. So there is no reason to change that for odd ability boosts.

If market price is only determined by how useful it can be to the right person, a position I think we both agree on, then a +1 Belt would cost more than 1000gp because both a +1 and a +2 belt share the most valuable part (that being a +1 modifier) when used by the right person.

[Stegyre]

If market price is only determined by how useful it can be to the right person, a position I think we both agree on, then a +1 Belt would cost more than 1000gp because both a +1 and a +2 belt share the most valuable part (that being a +1 modifier) when used by the right person.
If either one of you agrees with that assumption, I think you err. The cost to the seller to buy/transport/create an item is also a significant determiner. In an informed market, you do not get the value of "whatever this item is worth to the buyer" but "whatever is the lowest price for which others will sell it."

If a crafter can make a +1 item for 25% the cost of a +2 item, then +1 items are going to sell for about 25% the price of +2 items, because if anyone tried to sell them for more, they would be undercut by the competition.

Characters with even attribute scores aren't likely to buy +1 items, but "some people will have no interest in this item" (or at least, "no use at this price") is true for the vast majority of items. It is not a credible argument for not including such items.

[OldTrees1]

If either one of you agrees with that assumption, I think you err. The cost to the seller to buy/transport/create an item is also a significant determiner. In an informed market, you do not get the value of "whatever this item is worth to the buyer" but "whatever is the lowest price for which others will sell it."
I believe we are talking about D&D. In D&D taking a feat that cheapen the cost to craft does not affect the market price of the item crafted. Furthermore, in D&D, the cost to craft is explicitly derived from the Market Price and not vice versa.


If a crafter can make a +1 item for 25% the cost of a +2 item, then +1 items are going to sell for about 25% the price of +2 items, because if anyone tried to sell them for more, they would be undercut by the competition. That is a pretty big IF considering +1 items do not have a set crafting price and I am arguing that their market price, and thus their crafting price because this is D&D, would be higher than 1000X2.


Characters with even attribute scores aren't likely to buy +1 items, but "some people will have no interest in this item" (or at least, "no use at this price") is true for the vast majority of items. It is not a credible argument for not including such items.
I do not see the relevance of this section of your reply. It almost sounds like you meant this last paragraph to be a reply to someone else.

[Stegyre]

I believe we are talking about D&D. In D&D taking a feat that cheapen the cost to craft does not affect the market price of the item crafted. Furthermore, in D&D, the cost to craft is explicitly derived from the Market Price and not vice versa.
D&D economics is admittedly whacked.

The problem for your argument, however, is that D&D economics does not support your own premise: that price is determined by usefulness. Numerous counterexamples exist. Take spell items as a quick one (be they potions, scrolls, wands . . .). Price is based on a formula of SL*CL, regardless of "usefulness."

The support your assumption has comes from real-world economics. It seems to me you are trying to pick the parts of real-world economics that support your contention while ignoring those that are contrary. That doesn't work.

That is a pretty big IF considering +1 items do not have a set crafting price and I am arguing that their market price, and thus their crafting price because this is D&D, would be higher than 1000X2.
+1 items are necessarily in the range of homebrew, as are all custom magic items. In a game with no custom magic items, the discussion is moot. In a game with custom items, +1 items have a readily-identifiable formula for cost of creation.

I do not see the relevance of this section of your reply. It almost sounds like you meant this last paragraph to be a reply to someone else.
True. It's not all about you.

[Seto]

Evening odd ability scores are the WORST.


...I'd much rather have odd ability scores in the morning. :smallbiggrin:

[OldTrees1]

D&D economics is admittedly whacked.

The problem for your argument, however, is that D&D economics does not support your own premise: that price is determined by usefulness. Numerous counterexamples exist. Take spell items as a quick one (be they potions, scrolls, wands . . .). Price is based on a formula of SL*CL, regardless of "usefulness."

The support your assumption has comes from real-world economics. It seems to me you are trying to pick the parts of real-world economics that support your contention while ignoring those that are contrary. That doesn't work.

+1 items are necessarily in the range of homebrew, as are all custom magic items. In a game with no custom magic items, the discussion is moot. In a game with custom items, +1 items have a readily-identifiable formula for cost of creation.

There are 3 kinds of items:

Items that exist with set prices
Items that don't exist but have initial estimates from the custom magic item guidelines
Items that don't exist and do not have initial estimates


You are right that Wands fall into that first category and thus have set prices based statistics. However we are talking about the 2nd category. Do you believe these items, when included, should be priced without DM judgement? Regardless of whether you believe that or not, I disagree with that position. The DM's judgement is what turns those rough estimates into sensible market prices. What is a sensible price for a magic item in a game? A price related to the value of the item would make sense for balance. A price reflecting the economy(supply & demand) would make sense for a detailed immersion game but would require homebrewed crafting rules.

So, since the odd bonus items are stronger than the even bonus item curve expects, the odd bonus items would have their own, slightly higher, curve. Say 1000X(X+1) as a rough guess. That would be 2,000gp, 12,000gp, and 30,000gp for the +1/+2/+3 ability modifier benefit those items provide.

[Dagroth]

Odd numbered Ability Score Items do, in fact, have a RAW value attached.

From the DMG, Page 285, Table 7-33:
Effect: Ability bonus (enhancement), Base Price: Bonus squared × 1,000 gp, Example: Gloves of Dexterity +2

I was not just pulling numbers out of a hat, or extrapolating them prices based on existing items. I was giving numbers from the DMG.

A +1 to a stat item is 1000gp
A +3 to a stat item is 9000gp
A +5 to a stat item is 25000gp

The DMG says so, by RAW.

[Stegyre]

Do you believe these items, when included, should be priced without DM judgement? Regardless of whether you believe that or not, I disagree with that position. The DM's judgement is what turns those rough estimates into sensible market prices.
Obvious strawman is obvious.
No, as far as I have seen, no one in this thread has proposed anything like pricing items without DM judgment. All custom items necessarily presume DM judgment, which is why the custom items guidelines are guidelines rather than rules.

What is a sensible price for a magic item in a game? A price related to the value of the item would make sense for balance.
You make such assertions as if the existing rules endorsed that position. They don't. The economic rules are whacked; they are all over the place. I love the folding boat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#boatFolding). How exactly (or even generally) is it "balanced" at 7,200 gp, and why on Earth is the Apparatus of the Crab (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#apparatusoftheCrab) "balanced" at 90,000 gp??

A price reflecting the economy(supply & demand) would make sense for a detailed immersion game but would require homebrewed crafting rules.
You don't need "detailed immersion" to take notice of basic verisimilitude breaking. That is why most games do not allow characters to get rich selling their walls of iron.

So, since the odd bonus items are stronger than the even bonus item curve expects, the odd bonus items would have their own, slightly higher, curve. Say 1000X(X+1) as a rough guess. That would be 2,000gp, 12,000gp, and 30,000gp for the +1/+2/+3 ability modifier benefit those items provide.
Odd bonus items are stronger because . . . ?

[OldTrees1]

Obvious strawman is obvious.
No, as far as I have seen, no one in this thread has proposed anything like pricing items without DM judgment. All custom items necessarily presume DM judgment, which is why the custom items guidelines are guidelines rather than rules.
Obviously I misread your intent when you were comparing these custom items to their pre DM judgement estimation and comparing them to things like Folding Boat and Apparatus of the Crab. As such I will move on with our agreement that all custom items (even the price on odd ability enhancements) would go through DM judgement and adjustment beyond the initial estimates.


You make such assertions as if the existing rules endorsed that position. They don't. The economic rules are whacked; they are all over the place. I love the folding boat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#boatFolding). How exactly (or even generally) is it "balanced" at 7,200 gp, and why on Earth is the Apparatus of the Crab (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#apparatusoftheCrab) "balanced" at 90,000 gp??
Just because WotC are bad at judging prices does not change our agreement that custom items are subject to pricing based on DM judgement. I will not fight what you called a strawman.


You don't need "detailed immersion" to take notice of basic verisimilitude breaking. That is why most games do not allow characters to get rich selling their walls of iron.
I didn't say you did need such nor will I respond to such a strawman. Mentioning that games that actually simulate the economic supply and demand at a detailed level would deviate from what I am say should not be a controversial statement.


Odd bonus items are stronger because . . . ?
Are you unaware of the post where I broke down the 3 benefits of ability enhancement items and noticed that one of those benefits rounds up to the nearest even bonus for the people that would use the item.

In case you forgot or did not read the context before starting this argument: A +1/+3/+5 Belt grants a +1/+2/+3 increase in the ability modifier of the user that would be using it (since such a user would have an odd score initially).

It is not that a +1 Belt is stronger than a +2 Belt. Rather it is that a +1 Belt is closer in strength to a +2 Belt than extending the even bonus equation to odd bonuses would predict. Hence why prediction of an aware DM's judgement would tend to predict higher costs for odd bonus belts than the even bonus equation initially estimates.

[Stegyre]

In case you forgot or did not read the context before starting this argument: A +1/+3/+5 Belt grants a +1/+2/+3 increase in the ability modifier of the user that would be using it (since such a user would have an odd score initially).

It is not that a +1 Belt is stronger than a +2 Belt. Rather it is that a +1 Belt is closer in strength to a +2 Belt than extending the even bonus equation to odd bonuses would predict. Hence why prediction of an aware DM's judgement would tend to predict higher costs for odd bonus belts than the even bonus equation initially estimates.
Yes, I did read the analysis. It is not something I agree with.

We agree on this much (of what you have not already covered): odd items will be purchased by odd characters.

Perhaps we also agree on this: no one takes an odd ability score to improve their ability damage resistance; rarely does one do so for a feat prerequisite. The chief reason for having an odd ability score is to be that much closer to the next ability modifier.

A +1 Belt is "closer in strength to a +2 Belt" only because of the investment by the PC in having an odd ability score. That investment should be worth something. Odd increases are very highly priced in the game: you get one only once every 4 levels or at a cost of 25,000+ gp. Feats are more common and cheaper.

Where does your analysis address that?

To my mind, allowing odd items is where we allow those characters to get the return on their investment.

[OldTrees1]

Yes, I did read the analysis. It is not something I agree with.

We agree on this much (of what you have not already covered): odd items will be purchased by odd characters.

Perhaps we also agree on this: no one takes an odd ability score to improve their ability damage resistance; rarely does one do so for a feat prerequisite. The chief reason for having an odd ability score is to be that much closer to the next ability modifier.

A +1 Belt is "closer in strength to a +2 Belt" only because of the investment by the PC in having an odd ability score. That investment should be worth something. Odd increases are very highly priced in the game: you get one only once every 4 levels or at a cost of 25,000+ gp. Feats are more common and cheaper.

Where does your analysis address that?

To my mind, allowing odd items is where we allow those characters to get the return on their investment.

Ah, so we agree on the basic stuff.

What do we expect that return on investment to look like? Baseline we should expect there to be an improvement(higher modifier or cheaper gear) when odd bonus items are added. However you would also expect immediate returns(higher modifier or cheaper gear) whenever a character levels up their score using the HD.

A Character is leveling up Strength and buying Strength boosts at 25% of WBL. The Tome bought was the tome most effective at 20th level but was bought as early as possible (+4 bought at 19th for 15 and +5 bought at 20th for 16). HD based increases are in bold. Cell format is (Ability Score Gear Cost).

Level
15
16
15 with odds
16 with odds

1
15 0gp
16 0gp
15 0gp
16 0gp

4
16 0gp
17 0gp
16 0gp
17 0gp

5
16 0gp
17 0gp
16 0gp
18 2Kgp

7
18 4Kgp
19 4Kgp
18 4Kgp
18 2Kgp

8
19 4Kgp
20 4Kgp
18 2Kgp
20 4Kgp

10
19 4Kgp
20 4Kgp
20 12Kgp
20 4Kgp

11
21 16Kgp
22 16Kgp
20 12Kgp
22 16Kgp

12
22 16Kgp
23 16Kgp
22 16Kgp
22 12Kgp

14
22 16Kgp
23 16Kgp
22 16Kgp
24 30Kgp

15
24 36Kgp
25 36Kgp
24 36Kgp
24 30Kgp

16
25 36Kgp
26 36Kgp
24 30Kgp
26 36Kgp

16
25 36Kgp
26 36Kgp
24 30Kgp
26 36Kgp

19
27 126Kgp
26 36Kgp
28 140Kgp
26 36Kgp

20
30 146Kgp
32 173.5Kgp
30 146Kgp
32 173.5Kgp


In conclusion the inclusion of odd bonus items at appropriate prices does reward investment even when the odd bonus items at priced closer to their true value.

[Dagroth]

I think it's funny that some of the people who scream "it's RAW!" when building characters or interpreting feats are against the RAW fact of odd-numbered enhancement items.

[OldTrees1]

I think it's funny that some of the people who scream "it's RAW!" when building characters or interpreting feats are against the RAW fact of odd-numbered enhancement items.

Who are those "some" you are referring to? (I have not been reading every subthread here)

Also are you sure that the custom item guidelines are RAW and not guidelines? That is the excuse I often hear and I would be interested in correcting my understanding if a misunderstanding exists.

[Dagroth]

Who are those "some" you are referring to (I have not been reading every subthread here) and are you sure that the custom item guidelines are RAW and not guidelines?

The entire UA book is filled with guidelines and "variants"... and few actual rules.

Even the "putting additional effects on existing magic items" rules in MIC are "recommendations" and "guidelines".

When it comes right down to it, everything is subject to Rule Zero.

Claiming one set of rules as "guidelines" and the other as "RAW" is just cherry-picking.

[OldTrees1]

The entire UA book is filled with guidelines and "variants"... and few actual rules.

Even the "putting additional effects on existing magic items" rules in MIC are "recommendations" and "guidelines".

When it comes right down to it, everything is subject to Rule Zero.

Claiming one set of rules as "guidelines" and the other as "RAW" is just cherry-picking.

I think that boils down to how "discussion by "RAW" " tended to be used. From my small observations it seems to be trying to arrive at a consensus by removing the subjective variables(the DM). Some parts of the text are "If this is true, it is true as it stands" and others are "If this is true, it is true as it comes out of DM judgement rather than how it stands". Only the former could be used in the absence of the subjective variables and even then lots of arguments abound as a result of trying to handle consensus, rule zero, and the subjective DM. So it is not so much cherry picking as it is the logical consequence of an incomplete irrelevant project.

I often get tired of swimming against the current and thus adopt the local language. So rather than say "The cost of the odd enhancement items is based on DM judgement and I think this is the factors they would consider and general conclusion they would reach", I am prone to say "The custom item guidelines are not RAW and the cost of those items is based on DM judgement and I think this is the factors they would consider and general conclusion they would reach".

Although I am still curious about who you were referring to. I am usually the biggest advocate for character specific homebrew when it comes to character creation. So there must have been someone else you were referring to?