Gloves of Monkey Grip (homebrew item)

[Arkhios]

I was brewing some unique magic items (again) and would like to hear opinions and suggestions for the rarity.

These black leather gloves have a patterning which vaguely depicts a monkey.

The gloves make your grip of any hand-held item exceptionally firm. You gain the following effects:

You can hold two-handed or versatile melee weapons in one hand as if you held them in two hands. Weapons with the Heavy property are treated as not having that property while held in this way and deal damage as if they were one size smaller (for example 2d6 becomes 1d10, and 1d10 becomes 1d8).
One-handed melee weapons that lack the versatile property deal damage as if they were one size larger (for example 1d4 becomes 1d6, and 1d6 becomes 1d8).
Items that are not weapons, such as arrows, deal 1d4 damage of the appropriate type and are treated as simple weapons with which you have proficiency.

[The Cats]

GNOMES DUAL WIELDING GREAT AXES YEAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Sure why not

[BruceLeeroy]

Hard to gauge. It's overly complex and also rather useless, except for a few edge cases.


It would allow someone to use a greatsword as a bastard sword+, so, uhh, cool I guess? But not worth much, unless they're really attached to that greatsword AND want to use a shield/weapon in their other hand AND don't care about losing the benefits of an actual greatsword.

It would allow the use of reach weapons in one hand.

The second bullet point counteracts the first in the case of a two handed weapon that lacks the versatile keyword.

A lance becomes a, hmm, 2d8? Maybe only when mounted.

TWF gets a mild boost from the bump in one-handed weapon damage. A mounted character with two Lances becomes even cooler.

The third bullet point could instead say "improvised weapons", in which case the damage noted is superfluous as improvised weapons already do 1d4, but proficiency with improvised weapons is cool.

I guess I would call this an uncommon item. On par with a +1 sword.

[Arkhios]

GNOMES DUAL WIELDING GREAT AXES YEAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Sure why not

At first it might feel over powered, but then again it's a magic item isn't it? But, the gloves still won't let you dual wield two-handed weapons. Not even if you had the Dual Wielder feat since they only make you treat a heavy melee weapon as if it wasn't heavy. All Heavy melee weapons are still two-handed as well.

[nickl_2000]

Technically as worded it makes it so you can't use GWM, although that's pretty pedantic

[Arkhios]

It would allow the use of reach weapons in one hand.

The second bullet point counteracts the first in the case of a two handed weapon that lacks the versatile keyword.

A lance becomes a, hmm, 2d8? Maybe only when mounted.

TWF gets a mild boost from the bump in one-handed weapon damage. A mounted character with two Lances becomes even cooler.

The third bullet point could instead say "improvised weapons", in which case the damage noted is superfluous as improvised weapons already do 1d4, but proficiency with improvised weapons is cool.

I guess I would call this an uncommon item. On par with a +1 sword.

Note that the wording of the first bullet point doesn't exactly make a weapon with two-handed property as a weapon with one-handed property instead. I guess it could be spelled out more clearly, but it was the intent.

So, no, a two-handed weapon that lacks the versatile property doesn't get increased damage. But, you could use a reach weapon in one hand. I have no issue with that. Whip already does that. And Lance while mounted.

besides, imho, lance and mounted combat deserves some more love anyway.


Technically as worded it makes it so you can't use GWM, although that's pretty pedantic

Which was the point to begin with. Being able to have both the benefit of a shield AND GWM would be broken beyond repair imho.

GWM is explicitly excluded from the wording because no other item specifically calls out any feats as not working with them. Feats are still optional.

[Twizzly513]

This would completely screw over the equipment balance system. Instead of choosing between a 1) Sword and board loadout in favor of AC or 2) A two-handed weapon in favor of damage, you can just have both. I'd go with very rare, because especially at higher levels being able to use a greatsword and have a +5 bonus to AC from a +3 shield is a damn nice item. It'd be a high power very rare, but probably not enough to boost it to legendary.

[StorytellerHero]

Narratively speaking - for the sake of magical explanation, the gloves would have to affect the weapons themselves in addition to the wielder, because the weight and balance has to be adjusted, not just the grip. It wouldn't be a static adjustment either, because the gloves would have to re-adapt with every swing and impact so that the power of each weapon is not sacrificed.

This is of a level of complexity that would fit Very Rare or Legendary items.

[Kane0]

Sure, doesnt sound too strong compared to other items.

An uncommon item that allows you to ignore heavy/two handed weapon properties and use higher versatile damage one handed seems perfectly reasonable.

[Talamare]

Sounds confusing after all the additions and limitations and reductions

What exactly is the goal?

To have a 1d10, 1 Handed weapon?
To have a 1d8, Reach weapon?

[JackPhoenix]

There's no such thing as "one size smaller" weapon in 5e, and "one size larger" weapons don't use different die, they double the die. Large flail doesn't do 1d10 damage, it does 2d8 damage.

[lunaticfringe]

I would say Rare or Very Rare. It would depend on whether it's attunement.

Also why does rarity really matter with brewed items? You are the DM or asking the DM to do you a favor. I don't bother with rarity in custom items because I'm not selling an idea to the masses. One less thing to fret over.

[Twizzly513]

I would say Rare or Very Rare. It would depend on whether it's attunement.

Also why does rarity really matter with brewed items? You are the DM or asking the DM to do you a favor. I don't bother with rarity in custom items because I'm not selling an idea to the masses. One less thing to fret over.

When I 'brew items I usually give them a rarity so that everyone who sees the item (including my future self) understands what the power level of the item should be without having to read through the description. Also that way it looks like it's formatted correctly :smallbiggrin: There are also a few areas where rarity might matter. Off the top of my head, rarity is a good way to quickly categorize things into treasure loot tables. Rarity is simply a general power label based on tiers that takes a few seconds to decide on; I think that it's a small price to pay for a general-use categorization tool.

[Arkhios]

When I 'brew items I usually give them a rarity so that everyone who sees the item (including my future self) understands what the power level of the item should be without having to read through the description. Also that way it looks like it's formatted correctly :smallbiggrin: There are also a few areas where rarity might matter. Off the top of my head, rarity is a good way to quickly categorize things into treasure loot tables. Rarity is simply a general power label based on tiers that takes a few seconds to decide on; I think that it's a small price to pay for a general-use categorization tool.

This. Whatever I choose to 'brew, I aim it to be on par with items found in DMG or classes found in PHB. Both in format and power. Plus, while a first draft (like this) might be worded convolutely, I prefer to make them less convoluted before I give them to my players.

[lunaticfringe]

Yeah well a Cloak of Protection is Uncommon a Ring of Protection is Rare. If I made Boots of Protection or Bracers of Protection what do list the rarity as?

Whatever my decision ends up being it follows my own subjective logic. A player can gripe about it but that don't mean ****, I have ruled it thus.

If a player is upset because another player has an item of a higher Rarity and not paying attention to what an item actually does an elegant fix is to ditch the the entire rarity system. Boom, done.

The boots & bracers of Protection would be Uncommon like the Cloak because it's silly/impossible to wear more than one. The ring is a step up because you can have more than 1 Ring. At least imho.

[Arkhios]

Yeah well a Cloak of Protection is Uncommon a Ring of Protection is Rare. If I made Boots of Protection or Bracers of Protection what do list the rarity as?

Whatever my decision ends up being it follows my own subjective logic. A player can gripe about it but that don't mean ****, I have ruled it thus.

If a player is upset because another player has an item of a higher Rarity and not paying attention to what an item actually does an elegant fix is to ditch the the entire rarity system. Boom, done.

The boots & bracers of Protection would be Uncommon like the Cloak because it's silly/impossible to wear more than one. The ring is a step up because you can have more than 1 Ring. At least imho.

I'm not sure I like your attitude here. Would you mind telling me why am I sensing unwarranted hostility?

[lunaticfringe]

I'm not sure I like your attitude here. Would you mind telling me why am I sensing unwarranted hostility?

A lack of verbal tones and facial queues in written communication and perhaps a bit of hypersensitivity to curse words on your part?

I'm not really sure? Why do you?

[Arkhios]

A lack of verbal tones and facial queues in written communication and perhaps a bit of hypersensitivity to curse words on your part?

I'm not really sure? Why do you?

Curse words are a bit immature in written and spoken communication and do indeed bestow somewhat aggressive tone to the discussion. Personally, I try to avoid them myself because they're strictly speaking against the forum rules.

Anyway, perhaps I was just imagining this time, and you meant no harm.

About the question regarding boots or bracers of protection when a cloak is uncommon and a ring is rare: I believe magic rings are in general more rare than other magic worn items. At least there were no magic rings until around mid tier (Paragon levels: 11-20) in 4th edition, which might have carried over to 5th edition.

Subjective logic or not, I'd put boots and bracers into same category with cloak.

[JackPhoenix]

Yeah well a Cloak of Protection is Uncommon a Ring of Protection is Rare. If I made Boots of Protection or Bracers of Protection what do list the rarity as?

Whatever my decision ends up being it follows my own subjective logic. A player can gripe about it but that don't mean ****, I have ruled it thus.

If a player is upset because another player has an item of a higher Rarity and not paying attention to what an item actually does an elegant fix is to ditch the the entire rarity system. Boom, done.

The boots & bracers of Protection would be Uncommon like the Cloak because it's silly/impossible to wear more than one. The ring is a step up because you can have more than 1 Ring. At least imho.

It's more of a matter of tradition. Rings were always "rarer" in D&D, sort of "ultimate magic items" (which has something to do with Tolkien, I believe). Even in 3.5e, feat to craft rings required level 12, while feat for the more versatile and varied wondrous items was available from level 3. With custom magic item creation rules, you could get the same function for the same price in a different slot 9 level sooner.

Besides being to able to wear more than one ring (but multiple same rings won't stack), the cloak has more disadvantages: it's more conspicuous and more likely to be not worn all the time than a ring, and it's also more easily damaged, lost or stolen. So yes, boots or bracers of protection would also likely be uncommon items.

[BigONotation]

The rules are too fiddly. Just make it so you can wield a two-handed weapon in one hand and get the versatile damage if wielding a versatile weapon in one hand. Call it out as not working with GWM or PM feats explicitly. I'd call that rare.

[Arkhios]

The rules are too fiddly. Just make it so you can wield a two-handed weapon in one hand and get the versatile damage if wielding a versatile weapon in one hand. Call it out as not working with GWM or PM feats explicitly. I'd call that rare.

Again, I don't like the idea of calling out specific feats because no other item does that. In other words, there is no precedency for that. Besides, as I said before, feats are optional. What if the game where I gave these gloves didn't use feats? In a way, feats in such a game wouldn't "exist" and mentioning them would be redundant.

BUT, I'll try and rework the wording.

[Coidzor]

Let's see... You can use Polearm Master with reach, one-handed, and with a shield.

STR-based TWFers with Dual-Wielder can do an extra 2 damage on average. Dex-based TWFers get absolutely nothing.

Sword and Board people focusing just on attack deal an extra 1 damage per attack on average.

Sword and Board people using a reach weapon deal an extra 2 damage per attack on average. 3 extra damage if going with a Lance instead of a Pike/Glaive/Halberd.

Great Weapon Fighting Style people can get a shield but only if they have a Versatile weapon, since a two-handed weapon wielded in one hand with these gloves loses the Heavy property and thus is no longer compatible with the fighting style. Only really an inconvenience if one has already invested heavily in a weapon by getting it Adamantine coated or if one has a magic weapon with no replacement.

A Champion Fighter or a multiclass build with Dueling and Great Weapon Fighting Fighting Styles can use both at the same time if they're using a Versatile weapon in one hand.

Half-Orc Barbarians can throw a bunch of d10s when they crit while also getting the +2 AC from a shield.

That's about all that comes to mind as far as changes. The damage ones seem pretty minor to me, while the AC buff seems notable.