Magic Items that Grant Skills (merged)

Magic Items that Grant Skills

Ok. My DM decided to impose a house rule restriction on magic items that grant competence bonuses.

He feels that regardless of the bonus of the item, it wont grant the full bonus if you dont have as many ranks in the skill.

Example. If you have 4 ranks in concentration, and an Item that grants a +8 Competence bonus, you only gain a +4 bonus since you only have 4 ranks.

If you have 0 ranks, you cannot glean a bonus from the item.

He wants the opinion of enworlders.

Lets assume that the item in question wont be granting a bonus in a skill that requires training. In which case the bonus wouldnt mean anything, since you cannot preform the check to begin with.

I'd like some of you guys to help explain how this defeats the purpose of skill bonus items to begin with, and gives an unfair advantage to those with ranks.

(Its kinda like the increasing seperation of rich and poor. Its a rule that gives the rich more money, and restricts the poor from attaining any. Not balanced IMO.)

Thanks.

I agree with your point on the bonusses... if the item gives a said bonus, you SHOULD recieve all of it. The bonus doesn't have anything to do with the skill you already have.

On the other hand... if you've got your hands on an item which gives you, say, a bonus to Sleight of Hand, and you don't have any ranks in it, I wouldn't grant you the bonus since you don't even have the basic training required to perform the task.

So... Items that grant bonusses to skills which can be used untrained ALWAYS give you a bonus (regardless of spent skillpoints).
But items that grant bonusses to skills which cannot be used untrained DON'T give bonusses, UNLESS you've spent at least 1 skillpoint in it (to make them available to you).

I think it is an excellent idea.

It rewards those who have invested scarce skill points, rather than devaluing their choices:

"I've spent seven levels perfecting my ability to hide"

"Oh, I've just bought an elven cloak"

I've seen the idea of scaling the maximum bonus equal to what you have already and it seems like a fine idea.

The idea of magic items that scale in power with their owner has a long and fine tradition e.g. a magic ring which grants joe commoner invisibility but which would allow the greatest heroes of the age to Rule the World.

I'm sorry that my viewpoint doesn't support yours, but I think he's got an OK rule there.

It might be an Ok rule but it doesnt make it a balanced one.

And I should add, this is a midgame change. No mention was made previously of this rule.
(he tends to do this often....far TOO often)

Plane Sailing said:

I think it is an excellent idea.

It rewards those who have invested scarce skill points, rather than devaluing their choices:

"I've spent seven levels perfecting my ability to hide"

"Oh, I've just bought an elven cloak"

I've seen the idea of scaling the maximum bonus equal to what you have already and it seems like a fine idea.

The idea of magic items that scale in power with their owner has a long and fine tradition e.g. a magic ring which grants joe commoner invisibility but which would allow the greatest heroes of the age to Rule the World.

I'm sorry that my viewpoint doesn't support yours, but I think he's got an OK rule there.

Click to expand...

You're missing two very important factors.

The character who invested skill points cannot have that ability taken away or supressed by other magic. Its a skill he has learned and can use whenever he wants. He can use this skill unconditionally (even if the DC is too high to succeed, he can still use it)

The character who bought the item can lose it, have it destroyed, have it supressed (in antimagic fields) and so forth. He cannot use it unconditionally.

Keep that in mind. That is what the character gets for his investment. While the other invests via money. Money that could have been spent on something else.

Remember all these factors are already accounted for in the current system.

Ok, I might go along with the concept of needing ONE rank in order to be able to benefit from the bonus (especially for Trained Only skills) BUT needing as many ranks as the bonus the item provides is silly. The more ranks you have the LESS you need the item.

Also mid-campaign changes to rules should never happen unless they are fixing GLARING problems or imbalances. The DM shouldnt be too concerned with items if he openly makes everything available.

ArthurQ said:

You're missing two very important factors.

The character who invested skill points cannot have that ability taken away or supressed by other magic. Its a skill he has learned and can use whenever he wants. He can use this skill unconditionally (even if the DC is too high to succeed, he can still use it)

The character who bought the item can lose it, have it destroyed, have it supressed (in antimagic fields) and so forth. He cannot use it unconditionally.

Keep that in mind. That is what the character gets for his investment. While the other invests via money. Money that could have been spent on something else.

Remember all these factors are already accounted for in the current system.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not missing those points at all.

1. Unlike in previous editions of D&D it is very rare for items to be lost except for weapons that could be sundered. In previous editions items could fail saving throws and be destroyed but it is so rare as to be almost impossible in 3e+. In 3 years gaming under 3e I've only seen one occasion where significant magical stuff has been stolen from a PC. 3e *expects* characters of a certain level to have a certain amount of magical equipment, and a DM who habitually strips them of magic items runs into game balance problems in 3e.

2. Skill boosting items are all ridiculously cheap.

It looks to me as if you are not taking into account any of the factors in my original post. Have a read of Wulf Ratbanes storyhour to see excellent in-game examples of these problems.

Having said that, I don't agree with mid-campaign changes of these natures unless skill booster items have never come up before this point.

Cheers

Plane Sailing said:

No, I'm not missing those points at all.

1. Unlike in previous editions of D&D it is very rare for items to be lost except for weapons that could be sundered. In previous editions items could fail saving throws and be destroyed but it is so rare as to be almost impossible in 3e+. In 3 years gaming under 3e I've only seen one occasion where significant magical stuff has been stolen from a PC. 3e *expects* characters of a certain level to have a certain amount of magical equipment, and a DM who habitually strips them of magic items runs into game balance problems in 3e.

2. Skill boosting items are all ridiculously cheap.

It looks to me as if you are not taking into account any of the factors in my original post. Have a read of Wulf Ratbanes storyhour to see excellent in-game examples of these problems.

Having said that, I don't agree with mid-campaign changes of these natures unless skill booster items have never come up before this point.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Its only very rare because DM's dont utalize that option. The fact is, its still an option if the DM uses it or not. You cant remove ranks, you can remove magic items. It doesnt matter what happened in anyones story hour. We're looking only at the rules as presented in the SRD and if this house rule is balanced based on that.

10,000 for an item that grants +10 to a single skill is not cheep. If the formula was too cheep it would have been altered for 3.5 (if it wasnt fixed to be more expensive already that is).

Yes 3e/3.5 expects PC's to have magic items at a certain level of a certain amount. That doesnt mean the items cannot be removed or rendered non functional. This is not Diablo 2 or a computer game. If a PC is wearing an amulet and a theif rolls high enough on a slight of hand check, he's gonna lift that amulet. It is reasonable to expect that the DM will at some point provide a replacement or something of equal value to bring the PC back up to spead, but regaining it can be the source of adventure and intrigue.

Fact of the matter is, this DM already allowed a magic item to be stolen from me earlier, so we know he does allow the stealing of magic items or the utalization of that idea.

I've actually used something very similar to that rule. And, in my experience, it's FAR more balanced than the core rule. I'd say that you should tell your DM it's a great idea, except that based on your other comments you're clearly set against it. You claim that it's increasing the separation between those who have skills and those who don't, and I'll agree, but I think that's a GOOD thing, that 3E desperately needs more reasons to want skill points.

There are, IMO, a few distinct problems to be resolved here:
1> Some skills are more valuable than others, and yet they're all priced the same.
+10 to Jump might not be too impressive, but +10 to Concentration allows a 1st-level caster to Cast Defensively without fail. The same goes for Tumble, where you might only need to hit DC 15.
2> The price is too low.
Your opinion may vary on this one, but in my experience a character could have a slew of +5-skill items on hand for emergencies. Realize that +5 to a skill check is better than any one Feat can provide, and yet it only costs 2500 gp.
3> On opposed skill checks, even a +5 bonus makes a huge difference, and yet these are considered "minor" items.
Take a Spot vs. Hide opposed check. If the bonuses are equal, the odds are 47.5%-47.5%, with a 5% chance of a tie. If one person now gets a +5 bonus, it drops to 70%-26.25%, with a 3.75% chance of a tie. Most players IMC took Improved Initiative for the similar effect; it was just too important to get that slight advantage over the bad guys.
4> Someone who already has a high skill check can use a +skill item to reach Epic-level bonuses.
This isn't that big of a problem, really, since most skills have a "soft cap". If you've got +30 Tumble, what exactly does another +10 give you?
5> Someone who doesn't bother with skill ranks can use +skill items to remove the advantages of skill-based classes.
The Fighter puts on the Cloak and Boots of Elvenkind, and now sneaks around better than the Rogue; what's the point of playing a class with more skill points, then? As it is, spells like Invisibility remove 90% of the benefits of Hide.
(This is where the discussion of Wulf's Story Hour comes in; he was a Fighter/Rogue, whose Rogue skills ended up being inferior to low-level magic and cheap items. Up the Sun!)

The house-rule in question solves several of these. Other house rules I've seen:
> If the skill the item gives is a cross-class skill for you, you only get half the normal benefit, and if it's a exclusive skill not on your list, you get no benefit. (Downside: a Ftr 19/Rog 1 would still get the full benefit of rogue-skill items.
> Bonuses from items give temporary skill ranks, but your total skill ranks can't ever be higher than the max for your class. That is, if it's a cross-class skill your ranks + skill bonuses can't be higher than (L+3)/2, and if it's a restricted skill (not in 3.5E) you can't do it at all. You also don't get the other benefits of actual skill ranks (no qualifying for PrCs, no extra Bard songs for Perform skill), just the skill check bonus.
> Creating any +skill item requires 1 rank for each plus, so the chances of finding a +10 Tumble item are relatively slim, because there aren't that many Wizard/Rogues out there. Doesn't really change that much overall, but it does keep the party Wizard from churning out 50 different +skill items for the party.
> Skills used in opposed checks cost twice as much as the other skills. So do Tumble and Concentration.
> Make two distinct types of +skill items:
1: The "skill enhancers", that work off your existing skills. These work like the house rule listed at the top of the thread (effectively doubling your skill bonus until you hit X ranks, at which point it's a flat +X). These can be relatively cheap, and benefit people with lots of skills.
2: The "skill imitators", that simply give you a skill as-is. Effectively, they set you to X ranks, regardless of your own ability, since you're not actually learning the skill, you're simply replacing your ability with that of another person. If you've played Cyberpunk-style RPGs, you'll know what I'm talking about, or read the Intelligent item rules (they get a flat 10 ranks). These should be more expensive, since they're designed for those people with no skill of their own.
You could make a third type that does both, but that'd just get too confusing.

And to refute one other thing:
"Its only very rare because DM's dont utalize that option. The fact is, its still an option if the DM uses it or not. You cant remove ranks, you can remove magic items. It doesnt matter what happened in anyones story hour. We're looking only at the rules as presented in the SRD and if this house rule is balanced based on that."

It is NOT an option, and that's part of what I think he was trying to say. Magic items won't be damaged by a spell except in REALLY rare cases, so unlike AD&D you can't depend on a Fireball to destroy someone's magical cloak. More importantly, it only happens in situations where the defender fails his saves, which the attacker has no control over, so you can't plan on it as a strategy.
You can Sunder, because there are specific rules for that, and you can strike objects. But, against a player who has a magical shirt that gives +10 to Tumble checks, or a belt with +10 to Concentration, you have no consistent way of directly attacking the item.
As for theft, in AD&D the Rogue's pickpocket abilities were a nice flat percentage that scaled with level; in 3E they're an opposed roll vs Spot, which means there's far less chance of actually succeeding in most situations. So, unless the DM deliberately makes up an artificial situation ("You wake up to see a thief rummaging through your items"), players simply won't lose items in 3E, BY THE RULES.
To make it worse, practically every high-level 3E group I've seen sleeps in an extradimensional space or teleports home to a secure location, and stores items in more extradimensional spaces, so THAT's not even an option after a while. And, thanks to Divinations and such, even if the enemy does manage to take your items, you can always go get them back. So no, taking away the party's magic items just isn't a real option.

I never understand why peolpe come to these boards for advice, and then get all bent out of shape when the advice is not exactly what they were after.

Personally, I think the DM's decision makes some sense. I may not do it for every item... depends on flavor.

A ring of invisibility would still provide the +20/40 to hide checks

I may even have the cloak of elvenkind still provide a +10 to hide, regardless of skill level.

But a 'head band of hide' would not get the full +10 unless you have 10 ranks in hide.

OTOH, this opens up all sorts of possibilities.
Head band of Hide:
Doubles the effective rank of Hide to a maximum of +10 bonus.
Provides a minimum of a +3 bonus

Scarf of UMD
If UMD is a class skill
Doubles the effective rank of UMD, but a maximum of +5 bonus. (no minimum)
If UMD is not a class skill
makes UMD a class skill while scarf is worn. If scarf is lost, the skill can no longer be used.