Modifying +Stat items

[J-H]

I don't have too big of a problem with the Gloves of Dexterity (set to 19) or Headband of Intellect (set to 19). "Set Stat to X" items, to me, break, when you start talking belts of Giant strength. Why invest in Strength and get a Barbarian capstone when you can eventually (maybe) pick up a Belt of Fire Giant Strength? I don't care for how a single item invalidates a pretty cool capstone, as well as letting a 10-strength character suddenly be the strongest member of the party. It just flat-out invalidates the investment in base statistics.

Here's how I'm thinking about modifying these items:

"Set [stat] to 19" items: When attuned to this item, your [STAT] increases by +4 to a maximum of 19
"Set str to 23" items: When attuned to this item, your STR increases by +6 to a maximum of 23
"Set str to 29" items: When attuned to this item, your STR increases by +10 to a maximum of 29

The exact + for each tier of item could be changed; I'm not set on a specific number yet.

What breaks?
Is it less fun?

[Greywander]

I think you're missing the point. You don't give the Belt of Giant's Strength to the barbarian, you give it to the cleric, monk, or rogue. As for the barbarian, they get to use that attunement slot on something else, like a Cloak of Displacement.

[Quietus]

I think you're missing the point. You don't give the Belt of Giant's Strength to the barbarian, you give it to the cleric, monk, or rogue. As for the barbarian, they get to use that attunement slot on something else, like a Cloak of Displacement.

The issue here is when the cleric, monk, or rogue now have the same strength as the barbarian, and the barbarian therefore feels less special. Barbarian class doesn't offer much aside from combat and they're incentivized into the "strong tough guy" role, and then someone else gets to have half of that for one of their three attunement slots? That hurts.

I'm definitely on board with making the stat items give a bonus to the stat, rather than setting it to a specific number. There is no need for one item to override several ASI's worth of investment like that.

[KorvinStarmast]

The issue here is when the cleric, monk, or rogue now have the same strength as the barbarian, and the barbarian therefore feels less special. *grinds teeth* Why are people playing the 'compete with other players' game?

[Eriol]

*grinds teeth* Why are people playing the 'compete with other players' game?
I mean this honestly, not just for the quip: because that's the game humans have been playing with each other since the beginning of time.

Sure, sometimes we're not playing that... to a degree. But it's a part of all of us, and to ignore it, or (worse) to try and suppress it just grates on many people. It comes off as akin to "you're not right in feeling like you feel, so just stop feeling that or you're bad!"

Ignoring human nature doesn't work. Most of the time you have to deal with it.

[KorvinStarmast]

I mean this honestly, not just for the quip: because that's the game humans have been playing with each other since the beginning of time. In the context of this game, it's an own goal. I am aware of what competition is, thanks very much. :smalltongue:

[Amnestic]

Turning them into "+X, to a maximum of Y" is better in my eyes for sure, since it discourages dumping only to "patch" the stat later with a magic item - especially doable if your party has an Artificer in it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Is it less fun? Not sure if this interests you but this might get you where you want to go.

If you have that belt or glove or headband try

"add your proficiency bonus to the stat" it might work as you desire.

OR

"add 1/2 your proficiency bonus to the stat (round up or round down, you choose)" might also work.

That way it scales, it helps, but it doesn't enable what seems to concern you which is stat dumping.

[Greywander]

The issue here is when the cleric, monk, or rogue now have the same strength as the barbarian, and the barbarian therefore feels less special. Barbarian class doesn't offer much aside from combat and they're incentivized into the "strong tough guy" role, and then someone else gets to have half of that for one of their three attunement slots? That hurts.
The barbarian still gets to attune to one more magic item. The fact that those classes don't pump STR means they're necessarily getting less out of it, so it might not even be worth an attunement slot for them.

Where this becomes a problem is when the belt is giving more Strength than the barbarian has, so it actually would be an upgrade for them. I think this is why the other items only boost stats to 19; it makes it useful to anyone who didn't max the stat, but still worse than someone who did.


I'm definitely on board with making the stat items give a bonus to the stat, rather than setting it to a specific number. There is no need for one item to override several ASI's worth of investment like that.
Yeah, it can be a bit frustrating when you decide to give yourself a 16 to hold you over until you get the item, but you get the same result as someone who dumped to 8.

A good middle ground might be the higher of "set stat to X" and "+Y to current stat".

[Snails]

Turning them into "+X, to a maximum of Y" is better in my eyes for sure, since it discourages dumping only to "patch" the stat later with a magic item - especially doable if your party has an Artificer in it.

I agree. The simple "<stat> 19" items make certain "when I reach level X I will be hyper-optimal" plays much much easier. Such cannot be entirely avoided, but these items as is very much encourage these gambits.

[sithlordnergal]

Personally, I don't see an issue with the Belts of Giant Strength. They're nice, yes, but they're also hard to obtain, with the exception of the one that Artificers can make. But even then the Artificer can only make a Belt of Hill Giant Strength, which is basically having 20 Strength. Not only that, but I don't think it does anything to harm the Barbarian. Sure, a Belt of Fire Giant Strength will let you match a level 20 Barbarian that has maxed out their Strength, but by the time you get capstones, you should be regularly dealing with encounters that can shut off spells, spell casting, and magic items. The Barbarian is going to be the only one with insanely high strength at that point.

Not only that, but there is an opportunity cost to using those belts. If you're gaining those belts, chances are you're gaining other magic items as well, most of which require attunement. Unless you're an Artificer, you can only attune to 3 items at a time, and if that belt is required for your character to work, then you're gonna be feeling it when you have to decide which three items you attune to.

As for turning "Set stat to X" items into "Increase stat by X", I can see it working. You have the max limits set, which is nice, but I can't think of how those changes would harm anything balance wise. As for being less fun...I dunno. Personally, I wouldn't really care, it wouldn't change much of anything. Its slightly more complicated than just setting your stat to X, but not so complicated to make it less fun.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Unpopular (and quixotic) option: drop all the items which are simply "X number goes up by Y/X number is now Y"and actually add interesting ones that expand options horizontally instead. Yes, that includes all the +x gear that does nothing else.

[PhantomSoul]

Unpopular (and quixotic) option: drop all the items which are simply "X number goes up by Y/X number is now Y"and actually add interesting ones that expand options horizontally instead. Yes, that includes all the +x gear that does nothing else.

100% this, yupp

[Quietus]

*grinds teeth* Why are people playing the 'compete with other players' game?

Because we're playing a game where the spotlight has to move around, and if we go from one player being "the strong guy" to anyone in the party being "the strong guy", it limits the ways that character can shine in unique and diverse ways.

::Edit:: Compare to a belt that gives +2 strength/+2 max strength - now the strong guy can be even stronger! Rather than letting the noodle-arm sorcerer lift more than the guy built like a brick house.

[Greywander]

I still feel like the point of items such as this is to allow someone else to be almost as strong as the barbarian, or almost as smart as the wizard, etc. Gauntlets of Ogre Power aren't meant for barbarians, and Headbands of Intellect aren't meant for wizards. The only real issue is when you have a Belt of Giant's Strength that gives more STR than what the barbarian has.


Unpopular (and quixotic) option: drop all the items which are simply "X number goes up by Y/X number is now Y"and actually add interesting ones that expand options horizontally instead. Yes, that includes all the +x gear that does nothing else.
You're not wrong, but a belt that grants super strength is pretty in-line with mythology. In this particular case, I think I'm okay with it. And again, I think it's actually fine if the item is meant for someone who didn't max that stat out. The problem with +X items is that they just make an already strong character stronger, but something like a Headband of Intellect doesn't actually help the wizard, but becomes an interesting and flavorful item in the hands of someone who isn't built around INT.

But yeah, I could see a case for all magic weapons and armor to be made +1 (and only +1, no more) weapons and armor, and thus have to be given some other effect to distinguish them. Why make them +1? Well, because they're magic! A blade that never loses its edge, armor that never dents or scratches, the superior build quality of these weapons can be demonstrated by a slight buff to their stats. It helps to create a tangible difference between magic weapons and mundane weapons. But that's mostly just the quality of their craftsmanship, the actual magic comes from whatever other effect they have.

Something that would probably be fun is for a table to collaberate to write up a bunch of fun and useful magic items. Not just +X gear, but items that have history and backstory. Like, I don't know, the "screaming sword", which isn't a sword that screams, but you can't pull it out of the sheathe unless you scream "Sword!" while pulling it out. It was created by a snarky wizard who wanted to make his barbarian companion look like a fool. The sound of the scream also magically draws the attention of creatures not immune to being charmed, imposing disadvantage on all attacks against anyone other than the wielder until the wielder's next turn (which sadly applies to enemy and ally alike). Bam, flavorful, interesting item with a backstory and a quirky effect. Imagine the back and forth at the table making the items wierder and developing the backstory for the item, seems like it would be good fun and a good way to create a list of more interesting magic items than the standard +X items.

I'm also now imagining the barbarian sheathing the sword and drawing it again on every round just to impose disadvantage on the enemies. So every round he's putting his sword away, then pulling it out again while screaming, "Sword!" I'll bet it probably looked hilarious to the wizard who made it, and everyone else is just wondering what this idiot barbarian is doing. Meanwhile, the barbarian is secretly seething, but he keeps doing it anyway because it's such an effective strategy.

[KorvinStarmast]

Because we're playing a game where the spotlight has to move around, and if we go from one player being "the strong guy" to anyone in the party being "the strong guy", it limits the ways that character can shine in unique and diverse ways. That hardly answers my question, it only perpetuates the fail.

[Greywander]

*grinds teeth* Why are people playing the 'compete with other players' game?
If you give me a thingummy, I'll be quite happy with my thingummy.

If you give me a thingummy, but I see you giving the guy next to me a doohicky, I'm not longer happy with my thingummy. I want a doohicky. How come the other guy gets a doohicky, and all I get is a thingummy?

Sadly, this is human nature, and even the most confrontation-averse among us still feel the envy when someone else has something better than what we have. In the best case, this can drive competition, where we strive to achieve until we can have the thing we wanted. In the worst case, if we can't have it, we don't want anyone else to have it, either.

More to the point, though, D&D is a team game, so the idea that another member of the team can do our job just as well as we can means we're not pulling our weight. No one wants to be the third wheel.

People often complain about how much stronger casters are then martials, but even if this is true, the reason we've tolerated it for this long is because the casters are doing a different job from the martials. A power imbalance is more palattable when the two characters in question aren't directly competing for the same job. But when another build can do what you do, and better, and can do other stuff, too, it makes you question why you chose the build that you did in the first place.

Now, simply having comparable STR to the barbarian isn't sufficient to take over their job. That's why I'm not as concered about it. But hopefully this explains why some people would be concerned.

[Hytheter]

Unpopular (and quixotic) option: drop all the items which are simply "X number goes up by Y/X number is now Y"and actually add interesting ones that expand options horizontally instead. Yes, that includes all the +x gear that does nothing else.

Drop the ones that just add piles of damage dice while we're at it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Drop the ones that just add piles of damage dice while we're at it.

I'm fine-ish with ones that allow you to add non-physical damage, because that can be useful. And dice are better than flat damage. But I'd almost prefer ones that transform the weapon's damage type into something else entirely. A sword made out of the screams of the dying, which makes you deal psychic damage. A blade of lambent flame. Etc.

But I have a very strong distaste for things that add flat values to
* AC
* saves
* attack
* and especially save DCs.

[loki_ragnarock]

That hardly answers my question, it only perpetuates the fail.
OOOH! I'll take a crack at it:
The same reason that a person on a baseball team would have a problem with someone else on their baseball team on the 'roids.

Cheapens not just the achievements of the 'roider, but everyone else as well. Even if the homeruns keep a comin' and you win the pennant and the race for the homerun record brings in more viewers than there've been in decades allowing more money to flow into the sport.



To the OP, the set X to Y of the giant's belts are harkening back to the halcyon days of 2e where such items just set you to super strength, no fuss, no muss. And I actually prefer it to the +X to Y to model of 3e because I associate that scheme with the magic item treadmill where you *had* to take them to be optimal, thus running your character further into a specialized niche. They serve as a funnel, and funnels aren't fun.
Right now, the Barbarian can spend their attunement on a Headband of Intellect and stop falling for every illusion he encounters while suddenly remembering their history lessons with clarity. Bueno. That serves to broaden the character instead of putting them into the trap of hyper-specialization.
The real problem with these items is that there isn't an equivalent one for Wisdom or Charisma, as that leaves those areas off limits for a character to expand into. Which seems a bit daft, frankly, as an example Barbarian would be better served with an increased aptitude for interacting with people than lifting rocks, which he's already pretty good at.

[Mastikator]

Those are twice as good as Belt of Dwarvenkind (rare) which give +2 to constitution up to 20.

IMO the "set to 19" items are no problem at all since characters tend to aim for 20 in their primary ability score, it's more likely to help a character's secondary or third ability score. Or just shore up a weakness. A barbarian gaining 19 to int does precisely one thing- makes them stronger against intellect devourer.

However I do agree that the "set strength to 21/23/25/27/29" belts are problematic and I honestly prefer to just give those in potion forms instead.

[KorvinStarmast]

However I do agree that the "set strength to 21/23/25/27/29" belts are problematic and I honestly prefer to just give those in potion forms instead. Given that belts of storm and cloud giant strength are legendary items, if they ever do show up I'd expect to see them in Tier 4 play or late Tier 3, but your point on consumables is a very good one. It allows someone to really shine as a part of an adventure, and then they go back to normal.

And with that said, having three legendary items in a module meant for level 8 PCs is kinda nuts - White Plume Mountain. I have a couple of DM friends who subbed in {party number} rare items and two very rare consumables for those three ridiculous sentient items.

I am running it now and what I did was change Wave (so far) such that its cube of force feature only recharges during the full moon.
I'll be adjusting slightly the other two, but I really don't like them in the campaign at level 8/9. (And I dislike how Blackrazor is built as regards potential for PvP within the party...)
The three items are instead tied to a quest where all three of those items need to be placed on a giant-scale table in a millenia-old, abandoned, underground temple in a certain order next to a stone plate so that they can at last close the portal through which various aberrations, star spawn, etc are infiltrating into the game world. (I did some planning with the World Builder (my brother) on how that works).

[Greywander]

However I do agree that the "set strength to 21/23/25/27/29" belts are problematic and I honestly prefer to just give those in potion forms instead.
It seems most of us agree that these items are an actual problem, while there's some debate about the "set to 19" items (I think they're fine). However, one use case for these is as an alternative to +X weapons for monks and other unarmed martials. Though stat-boosting tomes do this better. And if you take issue with +X items, then this won't be an appealing use case.

[Snails]

IMO the "set to 19" items are no problem at all since characters tend to aim for 20 in their primary ability score, it's more likely to help a character's secondary or third ability score. Or just shore up a weakness. A barbarian gaining 19 to int does precisely one thing- makes them stronger against intellect devourer.


I doubt anyone will actually see at the table a player so "clever" as to dumpstat their Fighter's or Barbarian's Str and then get the Str 19 item. But I can imagine so annoying examples of secondary stats being used this was e.g. Barbarian or Monk to get an AC 19. Also, boosting a dumpstat to open up a multiclassing option.

Obviously, even pretty extreme examples often won't actually screw up a campaign. But I see these items as entirely unnecessary annoyances for the DM. How the players create their characters should not be highly dependent on whether the DM prefers a few more or a few less magic items in their campaign. While no system is going to be perfect in that regard, these items can cause problems when a different design would not.

[Quietus]

It seems most of us agree that these items are an actual problem, while there's some debate about the "set to 19" items (I think they're fine). However, one use case for these is as an alternative to +X weapons for monks and other unarmed martials. Though stat-boosting tomes do this better. And if you take issue with +X items, then this won't be an appealing use case.

I have a lot less issue with the "Set to 19" items, than the 21/23/25/29 belts, as Mastikator mentioned. At least with a "set to 19" item, my investment in getting to 20 gets me something the item can't. Whereas if I'm playing the Barbarian, and my schtick is reliable melee damage via strength/rage bonus/etc, and then the Bladesinger in the party gets a 25 strength belt? Now they can lift more than my powerlifter, and hit harder in combat without spending rage to do it, and they got to spend their ASIs elsewhere, getting additional benefits I did not. The fact that I can equip one additional attunement item feels like a consolation prize.

And when I get to level 20, having pushed through the most painful levels in the game (Barbarian tier3/4) and get my capstone? That wizard STILL has more strength than I do. And that just feels bad.

[Snails]

I have a lot less issue with the "Set to 19" items, than the 21/23/25/29 belts, as Mastikator mentioned. At least with a "set to 19" item, my investment in getting to 20 gets me something the item can't. Whereas if I'm playing the Barbarian, and my schtick is reliable melee damage via strength/rage bonus/etc, and then the Bladesinger in the party gets a 25 strength belt? Now they can lift more than my powerlifter, and hit harder in combat without spending rage to do it, and they got to spend their ASIs elsewhere, getting additional benefits I did not. The fact that I can equip one additional attunement item feels like a consolation prize.

And when I get to level 20, having pushed through the most painful levels in the game (Barbarian tier3/4) and get my capstone? That wizard STILL has more strength than I do. And that just feels bad.

I sympathize. Yet. I think this particular criticism is an extreme scenario that is more theoretical than real. IME, magic items are not just handed out in a vacuum. The working assumption is that one PC got an amazing item and your PC got a different amazing item, even if the timing is not precise. There is no rules-based answer to "I am jealous because the other PC has legendary stuff and I do not". Even as a Str 20 heavy armored Fighter, there are many reasons you might want to have something else and forego any claim on the Str 25 belt.

[KorvinStarmast]

Also, boosting a dump stat to open up a multiclassing option. I think there was a sage advice article on that which says "no, that doesn't work" but any DM can of course ignore that. Let me see what I can find on that, I could have sworn it made it into the compendium.
ETA

Would a temporary stat bump fulfill a multiclass prerequisite, or does the base score have to meet the requirement? Your base score, not a temporary score, has to meet a multiclassing prerequisite. Hmm, clear as mud, but I think that the base score is the score before such an item was attuned.

[da newt]

I agree, the make score X = 19 items are pretty easy to deal with and mostly benefit secondary stats, the giant ST belts can be problematic, +X stuff is less interesting than + some cool new ability, Homebrewing items to add X to ability scores can work better than set score to 20 or more, and temp super ST is more interesting than permanent super ST - but all of these things ought to be entirely within the purview of the DM who is managing the game and therefor pretty easily mitigated (AL being an exception).

Any PC build that relies on magic item X is a white room only theoretical unless the DM decides to enable it.

From the Player perspective I can report that my Dexadin who stumbled onto an unexpected belt of fire giant ST is ecstatic to have freak ST. It's damn near OP and his weapon of choice is just a simple +1.

[Phhase]

Adjacent Question: Can a "Set to 19" Item be used with the corresponding Ioun Stone to get a 20/21 ability score for the price of two attunement slots?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Adjacent Question: Can a "Set to 19" Item be used with the corresponding Ioun Stone to get a 20/21 ability score for the price of two attunement slots?

I'd say no. I'd treat it like barkskin: modifiers apply to the base underlying score, which gets replaced by 19 if the end result is lower.

Edit: although you could reasonably interpret the items as unilaterally setting your stat to 19, even if higher. In which case there's a conflict: 19 =/= 19 + X for X =/= 0. So one or the other doesn't work at all.

[Hytheter]

I doubt anyone will actually see at the table a player so "clever" as to dumpstat their Fighter's or Barbarian's Str and then get the Str 19 item.

I have definitely seen this, though our 'table' is a discord server where obtaining magic items is mostly standardised and uncommons are very accessible. Doing it in a game where the DM has final say on whether a given item will even appear would be quite the risk!