Advice on magic items.

[Dungeon-noob]

So i'm preparing for a new campaign at the moment, and i could use some perspective on something. I was considering what magic items i may or may not want to introduce at some point, since i'm starting my party of at level 4 soon to be 5. And i got reminded of the stat setting items. The gauntlets of ogre power, headband of intellect, that stuff. And i was wonderering if certain characters in my party might like them. I'm naturally very concerned about the impact of straight stat increasing items, our group has some mixnmaxers that have previously caused some friction. But i'm not sure if i'm being overly cautious. So i was wondering if anyone on the forums has any experiences with these kinds of items, and if they'd share some perspective with me.

For those who want to know, my party is looking to be a Stout halfling Twilight Cleric 4, Human Fey Warlock 4, Half-elf Inquisitive Rogue 3/Fighter 1 and a Simix hybrid Fighter 2/Necromancer wizard 2.

[Emongnome777]

I don’t think they are more powerful than other items of the same rarity. Note that the Amulet of Health (Con set to 19) is rare, so they really shouldn’t see that until we’ll into tier 2 at the earliest. The others you mentioned are uncommon. If you plan on handing out a fair amount of magical treasure during the campaign, they may end up dropping the items since they all require attunement.

To me, they are best used to bump a secondary stat that doesn’t need to to get to 20, like Int to an Eldritch Knight (though you can build a fine one without any Int investment).

I would think most characters would try to get to an 18 in their primary stat by 4th level, so I don’t see one of those items hurting the party balance. I’d say the fighter / necro could use one perhaps to help cover their MADness. That doesn’t seem like an class mix that’s really op, but I could be missing something.

I just considered this: are the players asking for these items to start the campaign or soon after? Placing an 8 in a stat and covering it with one of those items is pretty cheesy to me, and something I would discourage.

[Derges]

I just considered this: are the players asking for these items to start the campaign or soon after? Placing an 8 in a stat and covering it with one of those items is pretty cheesy to me, and something I would discourage.

While you are not wrong the flip side is sucky from a player's POV.

Being the only character interesting in having STR and having ogre gauntlets drop makes your stat investment feel like a waste.

[Zhorn]

While you are not wrong the flip side is sucky from a player's POV.

Being the only character interesting in having STR and having ogre gauntlets drop makes your stat investment feel like a waste.

Not always, if you're not handwaving away some rules or challenges that party may face.
Example: encumbrance and getting treasure out of a dungeon.
Being able to get another party member up to packmule status when trying to haul large sums of treasure out of a dangerous dungeon is quite literally rewarding when every pound of weight is adding to the party's payday.

Lots of items/spells/features can be like this. Cut out rules or parts of the game for simplicity, and suddenly a bunch of those items/spells/features become less valuable as a whole.
For my party, the ogre gauntlets were a huge deal since most of them were casters with dumped STR. The warlock wears them even though they never melee, because it boosts their carrying capacity by a huge margin.
Even after they got a bag of holding, learned the floating disk and secret chest spells, they still keep the gauntlets for the ability to carry more.

[Derges]

Not always, if you're not handwaving away some rules or challenges that party may face.
Example: encumbrance and getting treasure out of a dungeon.
Being able to get another party member up to packmule status when trying to haul large sums of treasure out of a dangerous dungeon is quite literally rewarding when every pound of weight is adding to the party's payday.

Lots of items/spells/features can be like this. Cut out rules or parts of the game for simplicity, and suddenly a bunch of those items/spells/features become less valuable as a whole.
For my party, the ogre gauntlets were a huge deal since most of them were casters with dumped STR. The warlock wears them even though they never melee, because it boosts their carrying capacity by a huge margin.
Even after they got a bag of holding, learned the floating disk and secret chest spells, they still keep the gauntlets for the ability to carry more.


I don't think that speaks to the scenario I mentioned. Specifically, the character who is interested in STR whose sacrifices to get 17 starting strength makes them feel blind/stupid/uncharming feels bad when someone, even themselves, gets 19 STR for free.

[Mastikator]

You don't need stat increasing items, they are boring and minmaxers love them.

If you're worried about power creep give them consumables, a potion of fire giant strength is much safer than a belt of hill giant strength. Especially if you attrition the players with multiple encounters and no long rests.

Items that actively do stuff is more fun, like wands, drift orb, sovereign glue, trident of fish command, circlet of blasting, etc. They also tend to lead to shenanigans

[Pildion]

So i'm preparing for a new campaign at the moment, and i could use some perspective on something. I was considering what magic items i may or may not want to introduce at some point, since i'm starting my party of at level 4 soon to be 5. And i got reminded of the stat setting items. The gauntlets of ogre power, headband of intellect, that stuff. And i was wonderering if certain characters in my party might like them. I'm naturally very concerned about the impact of straight stat increasing items, our group has some mixnmaxers that have previously caused some friction. But i'm not sure if i'm being overly cautious. So i was wondering if anyone on the forums has any experiences with these kinds of items, and if they'd share some perspective with me.

For those who want to know, my party is looking to be a Stout halfling Twilight Cleric 4, Human Fey Warlock 4, Half-elf Inquisitive Rogue 3/Fighter 1 and a Simix hybrid Fighter 2/Necromancer wizard 2.

The Fighter\Necro could use help, he like all Gish are MAD. A gauntlet of ogre power or headband of intellect to make up for their lower stat could go long ways to help em out.

I would also look into a Ring of Spell Storing for the Warlock. Its rare yes, but you can only add spells YOUR party knows into it, stopping it from giving out higher level spells until you know them anyways, and Warlocks are normally starved out badly for slots. That or throw the Warlock a Rod of the Pact Keeper.

[Zhorn]

I don't think that speaks to the scenario I mentioned. Specifically, the character who is interested in STR whose sacrifices to get 17 starting strength makes them feel blind/stupid/uncharming feels bad when someone, even themselves, gets 19 STR for free.
Simple answer: two characters with high STR is better for the party than one character with high STR.
So your character isn't the one taking the item? That doesn't make it a bad situation. You investment in STR has allowed the item the mobility to go where it'll provide the largest change to the party's overall combined ability.
Oh no, a ring of Fire Resistance has dropped... but I'm a Tiefling. What a wasted investment!
I have darkvision, it's just so stupid that the Goggles of Night had to be the item that dropped.
Boots of Climbing and Ring of Jumping; well since there's a Grung in the party, that's clearly an insult to that character's race selection
... right:smallconfused:

[Derges]

Simple answer: two characters with high STR is better for the party than one character with high STR.
So your character isn't the one taking the item? That doesn't make it a bad situation. You investment in STR has allowed the item the mobility to go where it'll provide the largest change to the party's overall combined ability.
Oh no, a ring of Fire Resistance has dropped... but I'm a Tiefling. What a wasted investment!
I have darkvision, it's just so stupid that the Goggles of Night had to be the item that dropped.
Boots of Climbing and Ring of Jumping; well since there's a Grung in the party, that's clearly an insult to that character's race selection
... right:smallconfused:

Yes, the item can still be of small use. No, that doesn't stop it feeling bad.
If someone had a build that required fire resistance or dark vision to work and made choices that are detrimental to their character to acquire it then it might well feel bad if the DM gives those items away in a session or two.

You don't seem to want to understand this perspective so I'm not going to continue.

Mastikator has it right, there are much more fun, safer items.

[Dualight]

You could float the idea of those magic items appearing to the players outside the game, while explicitly mentioning that you are not committing to including them, then gauge the reactions of the players. If they like it, have the items show up at some point you feel is fitting. If they express dislike, the items do not show up.
You won't need to mention specific items, just mention types of effects.
Likewise, you could ask the players if they can think of items that they'd like to see. Again, do not commit to any items where the players can know, so that the items showing up in the game will be a pleasant surprise(until they notice the pattern if you aren't subtle enough).

[Monster Manuel]

that doesn't stop it feeling bad.


I totally agree with this take. By the time The Gauntlets of Ogre Power, and etc, are likely to be available, the STR-based characters will likely already have an 18 STR. It's all but useless to a STR fighter, but seems like the kind of item that's meant for them, so it feels bad to that Fighter. But that's because the Gauntlets are not meant for the character that specializes in that attribute. It feels bad because they got the wrong item.

The item is intended for a MAD-type class, that's feeling pinched because they had to spread out their attributes. The Monk who had to dump strength to focus on dex, and is suffering with Athletics rolls, will love these things. The Barbarian who dumped WIS to focus on STR gets nothing out of the gauntlets, but it FEELS like the kind of thing that a Barbarian should have. It's not. They should have a WIS-boosting item, to shore up a probable weakness.

These things are supposed to be boosters to secondary stats, not the primary ones. Honestly, I think they should grant a 17, not a 19. Still a useful boost to a secondary stat, but doesn't overshadow the real deal.

For these levels, agree that potions may be a better fit than permanent items.

[Zhorn]

You don't seem to want to understand this perspective
No, I understand the perspective quite easily, I just think it is self centered and shallow and don't think it is worth agreeing with.


Yes, the item can still be of small use. No, that doesn't stop it feeling bad.
More than "small use", but that requires you to look beyond only your own character mattering.


If someone had a build that required fire resistance or dark vision to work and made choices that are detrimental to their character to acquire it then it might well feel bad if the DM gives those items away in a session or two.
Detrimental choices... to make a build work... yeah this conversation isn't going to get anywhere with non sequiturs like that. Have a pleasant evening.

[Demonslayer666]

Did your players remind you of the stat increasing items?

I have always preferred the utility magic items, finding them more fun.

[Snails]

These things are supposed to be boosters to secondary stats, not the primary ones. Honestly, I think they should grant a 17, not a 19. Still a useful boost to a secondary stat, but doesn't overshadow the real deal.


I agree with this take, and it is pretty much the way the DM decided in the campaign I am in right now. We found a +1 Int item, which actually allowed the wizard to boost a 19 to a 20. He allowed a PC to acquire a Str 15 item for a reasonable cost. (There could be 17 or 19 stat item, but these would considered major mojo items.)

So that allows someone to round out a secondary stat in a MADish build, but it does not directly compete with a PC invested in a primary stat.

[Dr.Samurai]

@Zhorn - You do not use point buy points to receive Darkvision or Fire Resistance or jumping skills. You do not really understand the point being made. Investing 9 point buy points, fully 1/3 of your total points, into Strength, just to see a Strength boosting item pop up, sucks. Throwing a valuable, finite ASI into +2 Strength just to see a Strength boosting item pop up sucks.

[Snails]

If stat 19 items are easily available and everyone knows it at start of campaign, I suppose that can be okay. As pointed out, I would probably just plan on my Fighter picking up a Con 19 item and not care about the Gauntlets. Or I will dive right into PAM + Sentinel, and forgo Str as the Gauntlets will come soon enough.

The fundamental issue is Gauntlets can potentially end up recreating both the good and bad of rolling for stats. If that kind of thing pleases everyone at your table, great. But the opposite could easily be true. If it is completely obvious to you this is automatically a good thing (or automatically a bad thing), you have not thought the topic through carefully enough.

IMNSHO, the Gauntlets are a poor design because it can easily make the game better or worse, depending on specific dynamics at the gaming table the designers cannot have determined from their keyboards.

[Bardbarian91]

@Zhorn - You do not use point buy points to receive Darkvision or Fire Resistance or jumping skills. You do not really understand the point being made. Investing 9 point buy points, fully 1/3 of your total points, into Strength, just to see a Strength boosting item pop up, sucks. Throwing a valuable, finite ASI into +2 Strength just to see a Strength boosting item pop up sucks.

Personally I don't see a problem with it for a primary stat item because I look at it this way - either I use the gauntlets to buff me until my Strength can be boosted beyond what it gives me, at which point I ask who wants them, or I already can do better so I just let it go to someone who doesn't prioritize strength so they can get some good use out of it. If it's my primary stat, then Im going to want a 20 anyway, or I'm spreading points or far enough that having that +4 is useful enough, for long enough, that I wouldn't feel bad about it anyway. Everything has a use, even if someone has outgrown it, like passing along an old, worn out handbook to someone just getting started because you decided to buy a new one.

[Zhorn]

@Zhorn - You do not use point buy points to receive Darkvision or Fire Resistance or jumping skills. You do not really understand the point being made.
Not point buy, but it is something you spend an investment choice on just as you would through race selection.
The point is it is a self centered attitude to think an item is bad because it

- isn't useful for you in your current build
- lets someone else in the party get something that you have
- or that it makes a mockery of your prior choices because if you could have known it was going to drop you could have planned around it, demanding that it automatically goes to you and not someone else who might have also wanted it.
There's a heap of situations where items offer similar features to choices players have when building out their characters. Stat setting items are not unique here, and bringing up other such instances like darkvision and fire resistance is just pointing it out.

Someone picks Tiefling because they are banking on the campaign having a lot of fire damage, that choice is also a finite one. Suddenly a Ring of Fire resistance drops and what... does the player now lament they could have chosen variant human for the 1st level feat AND still gotten their desired fire resistance?

Someone chooses Gnome because of the desire for darkvision or advantage on spell saves, but the Goggles of Night or Ring of Spell Turning dropping means they could have gone for a Halfling to get Lucky and Brave instead, and still get the other benefits through the items?

The S&B Fighter invests into PAM for a reliable bonus action attack using a spear, but the Scimitar of Speed drops and they could have spent the feat on something else and still had an easy bonus action attack.

It just keeps going. If an item replicates something achievable by investing your character build, then it's the exact same reasoning.
Rather than complaining that it isn't ideal for you, look at how it might be beneficial for the group as a whole;
"Awesome, now two of us in the party can do this thing"
And sometimes it'll swing the other way also. You invest in something but not in another that someone else in the party has invested in, and a magic item drops that helps you in that other.

[Dr.Samurai]

@Zhorn - None of your comparisons are direct comparisons though. You're talking about a one time investment vs something that people expect to continue investing in until it is maxed. We're also discussing a magic item that is not equally represented across all ability scores. If I had a chance of getting a Helm of Wisdom and Gloves of Dexterity, sure go for it.

But that's not the case. For whatever reason, everyone else can get the benefits that a normal Strength character is dumping point buy points and ASIs into for a magic item investment.


Rather than complaining that it isn't ideal for you, look at how it might be beneficial for the group as a whole;
Zhorn... it can still be beneficial for the group and still suck for the person that actually invested points and ASIs into the same skill. These are not mutually exclusive.

Secondly... exactly how will it be "beneficial for the group"? As we've discussed in a separate thread, the forum's preferred dump stat is Strength, for a handful of reasons. So... I've invested 9 point buy points into Strength, and 2 ASIs, and now the party rogue got some Gauntlets of Ogre Power. And I should be elated because... they can carry more things? They can... jump further? If they ever get hit with a Strength saving throw while they are on the backline shooting their l33t crossbows they have a better chance of failing by slightly less?

"Awesome, now two of us in the party can do this thing"
What "thing" exactly are the people that dumped Strength going to be doing now that they have a 19 Strength? They've built around some other stats, so what exactly will they suddenly be doing?

And sometimes it'll swing the other way also. You invest in something but not in another that someone else in the party has invested in, and a magic item drops that helps you in that other.
What ability score will I not invest in as a Strength character that I can pump up to 19 or beyond with a magic item?

[Ionathus]

Oh no, a ring of Fire Resistance has dropped... but I'm a Tiefling. What a wasted investment!
I have darkvision, it's just so stupid that the Goggles of Night had to be the item that dropped.
Boots of Climbing and Ring of Jumping; well since there's a Grung in the party, that's clearly an insult to that character's race selection
... right:smallconfused:


No, I understand the perspective quite easily, I just think it is self centered and shallow and don't think it is worth agreeing with.
...
Detrimental choices... to make a build work... yeah this conversation isn't going to get anywhere with non sequiturs like that. Have a pleasant evening.

Sarcasm and dismissiveness does not automatically invalidate the other person's perspective, no.

It is absolutely a crappy experience to invest a bunch of energy and tradeoffs at character creation to fill a specific niche, just to have somebody else become equal/better than you at your own niche because of a magic item. It has very little to do with selfishness or shallowness and everything to do with people wanting to play a unique, distinct PC. Wanting to be "the smart one", "the strong one," "the sneaky one" is not vanity: it's the conceit of the damn game.

Gauntlets of Ogre Power aren't going to automatically break the game - but it's not laughable to be aware about how they'll interact with your Barbarian's experience, and try to either mitigate that disappointment somehow or simply pick another item that does something more interesting.

[Snails]

It just keeps going. If an item replicates something achievable by investing your character build, then it's the exact same reasoning.

You are comparing small abilities that are basically "half-feat" level in power, literally implicitly evaluated in the system as worth about +1 in a stat, with an actual investment worth 6 or 8 or 10 or even 12 stat points.

Furthermore, you claim is weak because the examples of Darkvision and Fire Resistance are trivially emulated by low level spells, and nobody expects such to be special over the long haul of a campaign -- everyone should understand that from the get go. In contrast, someone might well expect a Str 20 or Dex 20 or Wis 20 to be special, because the investment is so much larger.

"If something is sort of true for a small example, it must to be true for a big example" is a very weak kind of argument, on your part.


And sometimes it'll swing the other way also. You invest in something but not in another that someone else in the party has invested in, and a magic item drops that helps you in that other.

Classic argument for random stat generation, right there: "It surely will average out enough that you should be happy, and if you are not happy that is your fault.".

Mind you, I have no problem with people preferring that kind of thing -- have your fun. But it does not float everyone's boat, and your simplistic arguments are going to convince no one but yourself.

[Zhorn]

@Zhorn - None of your comparisons are direct comparisons though. You're talking about a one time investment vs something that people expect to continue investing in until it is maxed. We're also discussing a magic item that is not equally represented across all ability scores. If I had a chance of getting a Helm of Wisdom and Gloves of Dexterity, sure go for it.
There is literally nothing stopping a DM from having those drop instead/also. And if this was instead AL, then the DM isn't custom curating the magic item list for your character anyway.
Next, I'm glad you recognise that those stats are intended to be maxed on the character, moving past the 'set to 19' these such items do, meaning that even if you were picking them up for yourself they should only ever be seen as a stopgap till you can stat increase past them and pass along the item like Bardbarian91 says or sell it later.



As we've discussed in a separate thread, the forum's preferred dump stat is Strength, for a handful of reasons.
Sorry I didn't realise this thread was an official continuation of some conversation you were having elsewhere with other people. My omniscient skills are clearly lacking and it is something I will have to work on improving. :smallwink:
In any case, swapping the discussion from strength to ANY other thing is fine, it is the exact same reasoning as I see it (hence swapping the items and bonuses about in the multiple other examples I was giving, and could keep giving). A player is lamenting the opportunity cost to min-max more if only they could somehow predict the future and know what magic item was going to drop at some later point in the campaign


So... I've invested 9 point buy points into Strength, and 2 ASIs, and now the party rogue got some Gauntlets of Ogre Power. And I should be elated because... they can carry more things? They can... jump further? If they ever get hit with a Strength saving throw while they are on the backline shooting their l33t crossbows they have a better chance of failing by slightly less?
Yes, glad you can see it. An uncommon item you don't have a need for has been beneficial for another member of you group. That is a good thing. Good things are not solely in the realms of optimization.
It could instead be a Headband of Intellect. Giving that to the Barbarian so they are unlikely to get OTK'd by some intellect devourers would be awesome.


It is absolutely a crappy experience to invest a bunch of energy and tradeoffs at character creation to fill a specific niche, just to have somebody else become equal/better than you at your own niche because of a magic item. It has very little to do with selfishness or shallowness and everything to do with people wanting to play a unique, distinct PC. Wanting to be "the smart one", "the strong one," "the sneaky one" is not vanity: it's the conceit of the damn game.
It's totally not selfish to want the thing you have to not be had by others in the group

Sarcasm and dismissiveness does not automatically invalidate the other person's perspectiveNo, but it does a fine job of pointing out what perspectives you don't agree with and think deserved to be challenged


Gauntlets of Ogre Power aren't going to automatically break the game - but it's not laughable to be aware about how they'll interact with your Barbarian's experience, and try to either mitigate that disappointment somehow or simply pick another item that does something more interesting.
Like a Headband of Intellect so they can also be smart like the Wizard/Artificer :smallbiggrin:

Seriously though, I do apologise that these takes have ruffled some feathers.
The intent is not to come across as dismissive.
I mean well, but I recognise that I am a trouble maker.
But I do think the whole "making this magic item available will hurt someone's feelings" is laughable and difficult to treat seriously.

[TaiLiu]

So i was wondering if anyone on the forums has any experiences with these kinds of items, and if they'd share some perspective with me.
I've played a character with the +strength bracers in a one-shot before. It let me invest more points into constitution, dexterity, and wisdom, which was nice. That meant that my hit points, AC, and Perception checks were higher than they would've been if I had put those points into strength instead. But your players wouldn't have built around the bracers like I did.

Currently, I'm in a campaign with another player whose character was gifted those bracers. He had a 10 strength but fought in melee with a weapon that only used strength for attack and damage. Having the bracers helped him a lot with that, I think.

And once upon a time I was in a campaign with another player who obtained the +constitution necklace. He was a Monk with a 10 in constitution and kept going unconscious. (He blamed me for it, which didn't feel very good.) I don't think the necklace had any visible effects. Such a necklace is probably most effective for a spellcaster who relies on concentration.


Wanting to be "the smart one", "the strong one," "the sneaky one" is not vanity: it's the conceit of the damn game.

I think this is a good argument. The point of a class-based system is to have archetypes, and in D&D 5e, part of fulfilling that archetype is putting your points and ASIs into certain appropriate stats. Having uncommon +strength bracers detracts from that.

I would also argue that having +strength bracers doesn't add anything special to the game. So the cost-benefit analysis doesn't seem kind to the bracers.

[Dungeon-noob]

Well, this thread got a lot more attention then i expected. I'd like to thank everyone for their input and arguments, it's greatly helped me figure out what i wanted to know. I'll probably not include the stat setting items in my game, as my group is probably more argumentative then the commenters here, and they appear to arouse some strong feelings on the matter. I'll just be using other items and rewards to prop up my less powerfull players instead.

[Dr.Samurai]

There is literally nothing stopping a DM from having those drop instead/also.
Thy don't exist so...

Next, I'm glad you recognise that those stats are intended to be maxed on the character, moving past the 'set to 19' these such items do, meaning that even if you were picking them up for yourself they should only ever be seen as a stopgap till you can stat increase past them and pass along the item like Bardbarian91 says or sell it later.

Yes. Now do you recognize that investing your finite resources into pumping Strength up to 20 while someone else gets it to 19 with an uncommon magic item might seem unfair?


Sorry I didn't realise this thread was an official continuation of some conversation you were having elsewhere with other people. My omniscient skills are clearly lacking and it is something I will have to work on improving. :smallwink:
I think holding an opinion while recognizing the opposing opinion is something that you should work on instead :smallwink:

In any case, swapping the discussion from strength to ANY other thing is fine, it is the exact same reasoning as I see it (hence swapping the items and bonuses about in the multiple other examples I was giving, and could keep giving). A player is lamenting the opportunity cost to min-max more if only they could somehow predict the future and know what magic item was going to drop at some later point in the campaign
As has already been explained, being the strong person in the party is different than having darkvision. A simple cantrip dispels the need for darkvision, a spell grants darkvision, almost every race has darkvision, etc.

These are different things with different investments.

Yes, glad you can see it. An uncommon item you don't have a need for has been beneficial for another member of you group. That is a good thing. Good things are not solely in the realms of optimization.
Lol... as I thought. You have nothing to add here so a single magic item negates much of the investment you made but it's okay because the rogue can lift a little more, even though no one tracks Encumbrance. Got it lol...


It's totally not selfish to want the thing you have to not be had by others in the group
No, but it does a fine job of pointing out what perspectives you don't agree with and think deserved to be challenged
It's revealing in the other direction as well :smallamused:

But the point is crystal clear. This is sort of closer to one end of the spectrum of full character replacement. So if the Druid's animal companion could do everything the strong character could do (or more), that would be at the far end of the spectrum. Granting a magic item that just gives you the same score someone else has invested in is on the lower end of that spectrum. It is exasperated with the Strength score because of how focused Strength is. A headband of intellect won't suddenly grant you all the arcane power that the wizard character has. But Gauntlets of Ogre Power will get you the same attack score, encumbrance, Jump, etc. as the strong character. If you have prof in Athletics, it's a wrap.


Seriously though, I do apologise that these takes have ruffled some feathers.
The intent is not to come across as dismissive.
I mean well, but I recognise that I am a trouble maker.
But I do think the whole "making this magic item available will hurt someone's feelings" is laughable and difficult to treat seriously.
No worries at all. When I see a bad take I feel compelled to call it out, and as you have yet to understand the difference between racial Darkvision and dumping 9 points and some ASIs into Strength, it's worth pointing out.

@Dungeon-noob - Well, we're just a couple of people on the forum having a go. You know your players best so you will be able to make the right choice. As you've seen, some people think these items are okay, and others don't.

[Zhorn]

Thy don't exist so...
Neither do Snails' STR 15 or +1 INT items in any official books, doesn't stop them existing in their games.
If this was an AL game, then that would be a valid point with the official content restriction, but as said earlier it would also mean that zero gear would be curated with specific characters in mind.
Imagination game allows for imagination options.


Yes. Now do you recognize that investing your finite resources into pumping Strength up to 20 while someone else gets it to 19 with an uncommon magic item might seem unfair?
Nope not at all. The existence of those items isn't hidden secret knowledge; anyone signing up to play can pretty easily see they exist in the official rules.
Unfair would be if something was being denied or taken away after having worked to obtain it.
The person investing in their stat is able to surpass the 19 stat granting item, and that item dropping in their game isn't taking away their investment.


I think holding an opinion while recognizing the opposing opinion is something that you should work on instead :smallwink:
Can do
Have done
But recognizing a difference of opinion holds no obligation in agreeing that it is a good opinion.
But as Dungeon-noob has pointed out, their players are likely to butt-heads in a way far uglier that our civil discourse over these items. So us agreeing to disagree is just going to have to do.
I'd hate for the mods to have to waste their time locking and scrubbing were this to pointlessly escalate with such accusation.

Side note for what it is worth before I go though, d&d groups are not a monolith (or however that saying goes)
- Not all groups as a collective dump one specific stat; all six get dumped at different times for different reasons
- Not all groups not track items; some do and others don't
- Not all group ignore encumbrance; some do and others done
- not all etc etc etc
Making sweeping generalizations about the hobby as a whole isn't winning arguments, it's just showing you only play in one bubble.
I'm aware many groups don't track encumbrance, just as I know of groups that don't track food/water, but every game I've been a player in and have DM'd for the past 6 years since jumping into 5e has not ignored those, just as they were not ignored back when I played 3.5. Maybe it's just a regional thing.

Have a great evening :smallsmile:

[Ionathus]

It's totally not selfish to want the thing you have to not be had by others in the group

What you just said but without being sarcastic :smalltongue:

In all seriousness, TaiLiu & Dr.Samurai made a great point about this:


I think this is a good argument. The point of a class-based system is to have archetypes, and in D&D 5e, part of fulfilling that archetype is putting your points and ASIs into certain appropriate stats. Having uncommon +strength bracers detracts from that.

I would also argue that having +strength bracers doesn't add anything special to the game. So the cost-benefit analysis doesn't seem kind to the bracers.


This is sort of closer to one end of the spectrum of full character replacement. So if the Druid's animal companion could do everything the strong character could do (or more), that would be at the far end of the spectrum. Granting a magic item that just gives you the same score someone else has invested in is on the lower end of that spectrum. It is exasperated with the Strength score because of how focused Strength is. A headband of intellect won't suddenly grant you all the arcane power that the wizard character has. But Gauntlets of Ogre Power will get you the same attack score, encumbrance, Jump, etc. as the strong character. If you have prof in Athletics, it's a wrap.

It's not about the numbers or getting cool stuff. It's not about wanting to be more powerful than all the other players. It's about wanting to be distinct from all the other players.

Especially at low levels, PCs can struggle to feel competent. That's by design so it's usually fine, but it also means people have to "pick a lane" at the start. As has been stated in this thread already, you have to invest a lot during point buy to buff up a specific stat. That's a tradeoff that's baked into the game, and people willingly take it so they can feel like "the strongest," "the fastest," "the smartest," and so on. If you don't have one of those defining strengths, it can be hard to stand out1. And people play D&D to stand out, to live a unique experience and contribute meaningfully to a team in big, flashy, exciting ways.

Players want to be unique. This is a major aspect of the game and a well-documented phenomenon. Every table I've ever DMed or played in, the players have always wanted to know what class everybody was picking - and only once have I ever seen two people play the same class intentionally. It was two rangers, and they immediately diversified into (A) a DEX-based archer and control-spellcaster and (B) a front-line tank. Nobody wants to compete for their archetype: that's why we have 13 friggin' classes and who knows how many subclasses.

It is entirely normal to want your PC to be unique, no matter how optimized they are. It is entirely normal for a DM to honor this unspoken expectation by not introducing an item that nullifies that choice. Characterizing the desire to be unique as selfishness, vanity, or immaturity is incredibly unfair and completely misses the reason why so many people play this game.

1. honorable mention to "The Generalist" here, who can do some jack-of-all-trades stuff. That, too, is an archetype

[Snails]

Nope not at all. The existence of those items isn't hidden secret knowledge; anyone signing up to play can pretty easily see they exist in the official rules.
Unfair would be if something was being denied or taken away after having worked to obtain it.

Please cite book, page, paragraph where we can find the rules for how a PC "earns" a specific magic item they happen to desire.

The topic on hand is advice for Dungeon-noob, in terms of running a new campaign.

I actually do believe your perspective on this matter, if explained carefully, might have value to Dungeon-noob. It is not important to try and "win" this discussion and provide the One True Way answer. Give the OP perspectives that might be applied to his or her gaming group. Ultimately, s/he will be the judge.

But so far, I think your explanation has a lot to be desired, and you are distracting yourself by bickering...IMHO.

[TaiLiu]

It's not about the numbers or getting cool stuff. It's not about wanting to be more powerful than all the other players. It's about wanting to be distinct from all the other players.

Really solid argument with concrete play example!

[Zhorn]

It is not important to try and "win" this discussion and provide the One True Way answer.
I think you're getting me confused with the other posters here.
My stance is dnd groups don't act as a monolith and there are multiple ways of achieving ends, and just because one method has been taken by one play doesn't mean you must lock down and deny all other means.
I was politely trying to leave this conversation as an 'agree to disagree' but it seems like you're still wanting to get a pointless 'win'.

But fine...

Please cite book, page, paragraph where we can find the rules for how a PC "earns" a specific magic item they happen to desire.
Overly specific wording, expecting some form of trap or 'has gotcha' built into this, especially since I wasn't taking about the active pursuit of magic items, and just their existence as drops by the DM alongside players making other character building style investments.
I'm going to assume this insistence on "earn" (which I didn't use in my posts, but so be it) is going to be used to negate this reference on a moving goalpost technicality.

XGtE p126
Column 1
Buying a Magic Item
bottom of the page

"You have final say in determining which items are for sale and their final price, no matter what the tables say.

If the characters seek a specific magic item, first decide if it's an item you want to allow in your game. If so, include the desired item among the items for sale on a check total of 10 or higher if the item is common, 15 or higher if it is uncommon, 20 or higher if it is rare, 25 or higher if it is very rare, and 30 or higher if it is legendary."

So if the DM agrees that the item is allowed to be in their campaign, then these rule provide the structure for the player to find and purchase a specific magic item they desire in the most direct way possible.

have a very lovely day :smallsmile:

[follacchioso]

Stats altering items such as the Gauntlets of Ogre Power are only used for some niche builds, that would normally be difficult to implement with the standard array.

For example one of my characters was a grappler Swords Bard. There it was no way to build the character effectively without the Gauntlets, as it was too MAD, depending on STR for grappling, DEX for AC, CON for survivability, and CHA for spellcasting. In that case the DM agreed to give me the item, as it was a short campaign, and it still did not break the game.

The Headband of Intellect is another one - which build would benefit from it, realistically? Maybe only some weird multiclass combinations, where a character takes a level or two in Wizard or Artificer, and uses the Headband to be able to prepare a few more spells.

[Ionathus]

Really solid argument with concrete play example!

Thank you!


I think you're getting me confused with the other posters here.
My stance is dnd groups don't act as a monolith and there are multiple ways of achieving ends, and just because one method has been taken by one play doesn't mean you must lock down and deny all other means.

Respectfully, Zhorn, you weren't just offering an alternative opinion. You definitely cast Derges's point of view as obviously wrong, first with sarcasm and then by characterizing anyone who would share the opinion as selfish and immature:


No, I understand the perspective quite easily, I just think it is self centered and shallow and don't think it is worth agreeing with.
...
More than "small use", but that requires you to look beyond only your own character mattering.
...
Detrimental choices... to make a build work... yeah this conversation isn't going to get anywhere with non sequiturs like that. Have a pleasant evening.

If you want to argue that there are multiple ways to handle stat-setting items and a different approach from Derges's worked for your table, that's fine and I agree with you that it's not the only way. But you shouldn't claim that you were acknowledging Derges's perspective as feasible - you attacked it quite directly, and with some very charged language to boot.


Stats altering items such as the Gauntlets of Ogre Power are only used for some niche builds, that would normally be difficult to implement with the standard array.

For example one of my characters was a grappler Swords Bard. There it was no way to build the character effectively without the Gauntlets, as it was too MAD, depending on STR for grappling, DEX for AC, CON for survivability, and CHA for spellcasting. In that case the DM agreed to give me the item, as it was a short campaign, and it still did not break the game.

The Headband of Intellect is another one - which build would benefit from it, realistically? Maybe only some weird multiclass combinations, where a character takes a level or two in Wizard or Artificer, and uses the Headband to be able to prepare a few more spells.

I've played character concepts in the past where a Headband of Intellect would've been really nice, for just such a thing! I once played a genius bruiser barbarian who was (or wanted to be) the team's strategist - I think I could only manage giving him 14 INT, of course, and even then I took a hit for DEX to make a character I thought was interesting. The INT didn't really do anything for me, outside of some Investigation checks, and it certainly wasn't overpowered since none of my abilities or features used INT!

Even still, a Headband of Intellect (and similar items) would've felt weird as first-tier loot. Instantly boosting a stat to its 2nd-highest level (at least in "normal" play where the ability cap is 20) should take a bit of work, because not everybody even has their primary stat to 18 by level 4! I would definitely do a "set to 13" or "set to 15" magic item as uncommon, and then bump these "set to 19" items into mid- or high-tier 2 rarity. I think a "set to 13" could have some cool interactions in the early game, where the wizard is able to become a bit stronger or the rogue can become a bit more charismatic, to make that one RP skill proficiency they picked a little more effective, without being in danger of actually overshadowing another PC whose actual focus was STR or CHA.

Sidebar: I realize 5e took some huge steps forward in allowing you to dabble in cross-class skills, but I do still wish there was a bit stronger incentive to not pick skills that exclusively use your main stat - it feels like you have to fight uphill to make even a single non-standard non-combat skill viable. Proficiency bonus is a good start but I feel like you wind up fighting your raw stats a lot. Give me a way to make athletic wizards! Intimidating monks! Arcane scholar rangers!

[Zhorn]

Respectfully, Zhorn, you weren't just offering an alternative opinion. You definitely cast Derges's point of view as obviously wrong, first with sarcasm and then by characterizing anyone who would share the opinion as selfish and immature:
I take no issue with being cast as 'the bad guy' for wanting players to consider the benefits of other characters at the table getting any form of advancement that don't hinder themselves in any way. But at the very least if you want to vilify me for what I say, don't credit me as saying things I did not.

- Not wanting someone else at the table to have access to a stat boosting item purely because you have invested in that stat is shallow, especially since the stat investing character will be able to pull ahead of that 19. Likewise viewing an investment as a waste just because an available magic item can achieve the same thing is shallow.
- Only thinking about magic items for how they relate to you and not others in the party is selfish, just as others have pointed out MAD builds might even depend on such items, or help sure up an area they were lacking in (eg: STR dumped character struggle with carrying loot).
I use those terms and stand by them in the context I used them; calling the perspective selfish and shallow.
But I didn't call anybody immature.

Call me out for being brash, that's fair, I can recognise how I write can come across as tactless without tone of voice. I'm comfortable with legitimate criticism, though that's your internal reading making that out as an attack.
I'm not a serious enough person to waste effort on a written attack.


If you want to argue that there are multiple ways to handle stat-setting items and a different approach from Derges's worked for your table, that's fine and I agree with you that it's not the only way. But you shouldn't claim that you were acknowledging Derges's perspective as feasible - you attacked it quite directly, and with some very charged language to boot.
No, I didn't claim I was acknowledging it as feasible.
I just said I recognise and understand what the perspective is. It is not difficult to understand.
But as I said before, understanding something does not obligate you into agreeing with it.

The irony of all this isn't lost on me either.
Usually I'm arguing players should be getting more used to the idea of having lower stats for longer, less min-maxing and less power creep, and here I am saying players shouldn't be trying to block others at the table from being allowed access to 19 stat items.
These are strange times for the berry club, indeed.

Have a good day :smallsmile:

[Snails]

Stats altering items such as the Gauntlets of Ogre Power are only used for some niche builds, that would normally be difficult to implement with the standard array.

In principle, I support the idea of stat altering items, to lend a helping hand to such builds.

In practice, the Gauntlets of Ogre Power as written is very sloppily designed for achieving such ends, and invites cheesy choices that might be construed as abusive by reasonable people.

Certainly a Fighter6 who boosts his Str 14 to 19 with Gauntlets, and picked up Sentinel & PAM is playing an obvious power build, not "niche". Powergaming made easy.

The choice of a flat 19 stat is unfortunate, IMO. For the purposes of mitigating MAD, boosting a 10 or 12 to 15 is sufficient. I am not saying that bigger boosts are necessarily wrong, only denying that I see a burning need here. The design choice of a flat 19, I very strongly disagree with.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's about wanting to be distinct from all the other players. In general, yes.

And people play D&D to stand out, to live a unique experience and contribute meaningfully to a team in big, flashy, exciting ways. Not necessarily.

Players want to be unique ... Nobody wants to compete for their archetype: that's why we have 13 friggin' classes and who knows how many subclasses.
Yep.

1. honorable mention to "The Generalist" here, who can do some jack-of-all-trades stuff. That, too, is an archetype You summoned me? :smallconfused:

[Snails]

here I am saying players shouldn't be trying to block others at the table from being allowed access to 19 stat items.

Ah. The problem is you do not have the faintest idea what this thread is about. The topic is on hand is to provide useful perspectives to Dungeon-noob about whether and/or how to include stat boosting in his campaign, when he already explained at the outset "our group has some mixnmaxers that have previously caused some friction". Context matters. Keeping in mind sore points this DM has probably already seen matters.

No player is "blocking" another player from getting an item. That idea is from your own head, as the topic apparently makes you emotional.

Again, this is the DM looking for advice and perspectives, to help everyone at the table having a good time, we presume. As I said already, your own perspective might prove useful to Dungeon-noob, but you need to figure out what the topic is, first.

Hectoring other posters about how they should be playing the game is not helpful, not even a little. In theory, helping Dungeon-noob explain your ideas to his/her players might have some value. How would a DM teach or explain such things? Such is not easy. In practice, it is usually better for the DM to lay out a fair-minded framework, and let the players teach themselves how to have their fun. But sometimes posters on this forum do say surprising insightful things....

[Dr.Samurai]

Call them selfish, self-centered, and shallow and then tell them you're being polite and they can have a nice day with a smiley emoji lol, nice!

@Zhorn, you just haven't done a good job of seeing where anyone else is coming from. It's possible to be disappointed that you've invested all your points into Strength and now the Bard has the same score you do (or higher), without reaching across the table and ripping that player's character sheet in half.

You have consistently framed this as "the DM is about to hand Gauntlets of Ogre Power to the wizard, but before he does he checks in with the barbarian, and the barbarian player gives a dramatic thumbs down and the DM tells the wizard sorry, no magic item for you". Whereas we're saying "the barbarian just threw his first ASI into Strength for an 18, and now the wizard found a pair of Gauntlets of Ogre Power so his Strength is 19, and the barbarian player feels disappointed".

And you refuse to understand that and consistently call it self-centered, selfish, and shallow to feel that way. And then pretend to be the polite reasonable one to boot :smallamused:.

[Snails]

Whereas we're saying "the barbarian just threw his first ASI into Strength for an 18, and now the wizard found a pair of Gauntlets of Ogre Power so his Strength is 19, and the barbarian player feels disappointed".

To be precise, I believe the OP was asking for advice for whether/how to bring in such stat items. Anticipating possible player dynamics, whether likely reactions are shining examples of maturity or the opposite, is part of the discussion.

Recall: "I'm naturally very concerned about the impact of straight stat increasing items, our group has some mixnmaxers that have previously caused some friction."

[Zhorn]

Sorry I cannot give you what you want, I just disagree with that perspective and don't see the need to sugar coat it or pretend it's agreeable.
It's the point of view I criticize and to which I ascribe those labels you detest to. Not the people.
Smart people are still prone to bad ideas.

And despite what you think, I do genuinely hope you are having a good day

[Dr.Samurai]

And despite what you think, I do genuinely hope you are having a good day
You as well!

We're entering the holiday weekend here in the states. I'm looking forward to our Descent Into Avernus game tonight :smallcool:.

[MrStabby]

The more I have played the more concerned I am about magic items, mostly for the reasons raised here.

I would suggest having a chat with your players about their characters though and what's important to them.

I find that a couple of questions go a long way. "What is your character's mechanical strengths" and "what is your character doing in the world, thematically". So for example a ranger might have "be able to do ranged damage well" as the former (though longer lists are fine), and might be "be magically in tune with the wilds" as an answer to the second.

These help identify which items might be a mistake to hand out and which are OK. A circlet of blasting, especially early on, kind of steps on those toes. The second part is harder to accommodate especially if there is a druid in the group but can point you to not having out items that boost the Nature or Survival skills or giving out ranger/druid spells to other PCs not similarly invested.

Things like boots of flying are cool, but I would never give them to a party with a monk in, as mobility is their thing. Likewise no magic weapons if there is a monk or a warlock using their ability to get magic weapons - facing fiends will actually make their special abilities actually feel special.

If there is a PC in the party with control spells, don't give out a wand of Web. If there is a two handed weapon warrior and a sword and board warrior in the same party, make sure that a magic shield drops before magic armour - a player is sacrificing a lot of damage to be the tankier type of warrior and it would be insulting to allow someone else to pick up both roles.

But speak to the players. Find out which aspects of their characters, or planned characters are important and which are not. Find out which things they want to be special... and rank them. If your ranger is about fighting undead then don't give a sunblade to the fighter.

I don't think it reasonable to want to be special in too many ways (for example to be a good swordsman, a good spellcaster and a good grappler and have good skills), if someone came wanting EVERYTHING to be special and protected then... no, but picking out the things that they want to set them apart is fine.

The other good rhing about this is as DM, it let's you make your PCs shine, but specifically in the way they want to shine.

And the stat increasing items? My advice is not to (whilst it might be OK, it probably isn't worth the angst of dipping your toes into that particular cesspool. If someone has decided their special thing is being smart and knowledgeable, then don't give out a headband of intellect to step on their toes.

Even more generally, if someone has boosted their attack stat to be good at hitting things, don't give out any items that allow other players to sidestep that process. And certainly don't change the ranking of saves within the party - if a class feature is proficiency in wisdom saves don't give out a wisdom boosting item that let's a non-proficient character be better at wisdom saves than a proficient one.

Work out what the party doesn't have covered or what no one is invested in and boost that. Importantly, if a PC dies or is replaced you may need to revise to accommodate the new PC.

[Monster Manuel]

You know, I think there's a nuance here that's relevant to this discussion.

I'm firmly in the camp of "I don't like how these items are designed, because they are rarely useful to the characters who need these stats and already bought them to a high level, and act like a shortcut to a near-maxed stat that lends itself toward min-max cheese".

BUT...I don't feel that way about the higher-level belts of Giant Strength. There's no way to build a character with a strength that high, aside from maybe a 20th-level barbarian. These items give something above and beyond what a character can do without them. It seems like less of a "cheat", and the character that invested ASIs into getting a +5 in their primary stat can still use these, to get to an otherwise unattainable +6 or +7.

Is the concern different once you get into the higher level variations? Or just more of the same?

[MrStabby]

You know, I think there's a nuance here that's relevant to this discussion.

I'm firmly in the camp of "I don't like how these items are designed, because they are rarely useful to the characters who need these stats and already bought them to a high level, and act like a shortcut to a near-maxed stat that lends itself toward min-max cheese".

BUT...I don't feel that way about the higher-level belts of Giant Strength. There's no way to build a character with a strength that high, aside from maybe a 20th-level barbarian. These items give something above and beyond what a character can do without them. It seems like less of a "cheat", and the character that invested ASIs into getting a +5 in their primary stat can still use these, to get to an otherwise unattainable +6 or +7.

Is the concern different once you get into the higher level variations? Or just more of the same?

Well, if that's the preference just provide items that raise a stat by X and raise the cap for that stat by the same amount. No fealing of "cheating" or being cheated by anyone.