D&D 5E Power Level of "Raise Stat to 19" Items

[Ath'kethin]

In my campaigns, there is only 1 of most items listed in the DMG. So if somebody wants to have one of these items, they first need to figure out who (if anyone) has it and then figure out how to locate that person/place and then acquire the item. There are some rough edges to the approach, but it makes magic items feel both grounded in the world and amazing to find.

I pay even less attention to the 5e "rarity by level" table than I did the 3.x "wealth by level" table, if that's possible.

In other words, I strongly disagree with the "rarity is no way to balance power" argument.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It was pretty crazy-broken, really. But, you can't be broken if you're not trying to be whole in the first place, so in that sense, 3e was at least trying for coherent or remotely balanced wealth/level & make/buy, so it was 'better' at that than 5e (in the same sense that going to a medieval surgeon for your headache was better than going to a medieval headsman - the former's skill at healing may have been worse than useless, but he wasn't trying to kill you with a huge ax).

5e design assumes that +1 pinking shears break the game, so use at your own risk. Also, it assumes the game is already broken, so whatever... it's a starting point, just have fun... etc... making up your own wealth/level & make/buy rules is a fine idea, but you might want to make up your own, more balancable items, to go with 'em.

5e design is just the old 1e/2e design, but with more guidelines. Magic items make you better.

This is in contrast to the 3e/4e approach where a certain amount of items were assumed to be necessary to keep pace with the scaling difficulty. Less than that amount "broke" the game, more than that amount "broke" the game, and depending on what was handed out you might still "break" the game in either direction because wealth by level didn't account for synergies or "useless" yet valuable items.

The only system that might even come close to resembling perfection in any edition is an experienced DM with good sense who is able to observe and adjust as necessary.

 

[jgsugden]

In my campaigns, there is only 1 of most items listed in the DMG...

This is my approach as well, sort of. In truth, every magic item I give out is unique. Many of them are reminiscent of a DMG item, but there is usually something different. For example, rather than make boots of levitation, I made boots that create a tower under the user. Rather than a +1 weapon, I made a charm that can be attaché to any weapon to make it +1. Rather than gauntlets of ogre strength, I have a Girdle of the Hippo that grants water breathing, a strength bonus, and advantage on perform dance checks.

 

[CapnZapp]

There is really only one place where they break the game a bit: When a high dex melee character takes the high strength items. Then they get the double dip benefit of a high dexterity and strength. Well, also if the character is built to rely upon having the item - a wizard with an 8 Intelligence that knows they'll get the Headband to get their 19 is a bit of a cheat as well...

Yeah, counting greatweapon wielders with Strength 8 is something we simply should not do.

Other than that, I would argue the Strength fighter getting a Dex item is worse.

A Dex fighter has everything he needs already; Strength gives him only relatively minor bonuses like Athletics.

A Strength fighter getting Dex... now that's different - she gets Initiative, Dex saves, and she can dump her heavy and unstealthy armor.

Getting Str as Dex is good, don't get me wrong... But the reverse is better


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

It was pretty crazy-broken, really. But, you can't be broken if you're not trying to be whole in the first place, so in that sense, 3e was at least trying for coherent or remotely balanced wealth/level & make/buy, so it was 'better' at that than 5e (in the same sense that going to a medieval surgeon for your headache was better than going to a medieval headsman - the former's skill at healing may have been worse than useless, but he wasn't trying to kill you with a huge ax).

5e design assumes that +1 pinking shears break the game, so use at your own risk. Also, it assumes the game is already broken, so whatever... it's a starting point, just have fun... etc... making up your own wealth/level & make/buy rules is a fine idea, but you might want to make up your own, more balancable items, to go with 'em.

Sorry for interrupting your ramblings there Tony, but what it boils down to is this:

While 3e might ultimately fail, they at least tried.

Not only doesn't 5e not try, it wants to be patted on the back for it as well.

Not only does 5e simply give up on trying to have an uptime gold outlet, they even try to sell this inability, this non-starter, as a good thing. [emoji20]

Sorry for the interruption. I just couldn't have you mince the words so they both look much the same, when one tries and the other does not.

When one gets flak for trying while the other wants applause for selling us nothing.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

5e design is just the old 1e/2e design, but with more guidelines. Magic items make you better.

This is in contrast to the 3e/4e approach where a certain amount of items were assumed to be necessary to keep pace with the scaling difficulty. Less than that amount "broke" the game, more than that amount "broke" the game, and depending on what was handed out you might still "break" the game in either direction because wealth by level didn't account for synergies or "useless" yet valuable items.

The only system that might even come close to resembling perfection in any edition is an experienced DM with good sense who is able to observe and adjust as necessary.

The treadmill is one thing.

But losing that is no argument for throwing out any uptime gold outlet.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Gadget]

I would say the 5e design is better than the old 1e design because it starts with bounded accuracy and allows you to 'break' or go beyond that with magic items. As such, I far prefer it to 3.x's +x design, where everyone was on the +x treadmill for the big six areas of improvement. I like the replacing your ability score with the new one provided by the item; it makes the item interesting. Sure the gauntlets may not be that useful to your burly mid-level fighter, but they might make your blade'lock better, or the bard. Just allowing players to price and pick magic items is were the problem lies, and was much of the issue with 3.x items as well.

 

[Tony Vargas]

5e design is just the old 1e/2e design, but with more guidelines. Magic items make you better.

This is in contrast to the 3e/4e approach where a certain amount of items were assumed to be necessary to keep pace with the scaling difficulty.

Yes, exactly. In 3e, the game assumes certain capabilities as you level, including ready access to spells via consumables like potions even if you aren't a caster, magic weapons, special materials, etc, etc... 4e assumed enhancement bonuses on specific types of items to keep you on the 'treadmill.' 4e also added 'Inherent' bonuses that took the place of those enhancement bonuses if you didn't want to use items, at all, or wanted them to be far less common and not cycle so rapidly as the game assumed, and I'm sure I recall 3.5 having something similar.

Less than that amount "broke" the game, more than that amount "broke" the game, and depending on what was handed out you might still "break" the game in either direction because wealth by level didn't account for synergies or "useless" yet valuable items.

Moreso in 3.x, where item creation actually traded a little exp for a 50% savings in gold, and items, though toned down to mostly duplicating spells, were still wildly powerful - and balance was generally loser. In 4e items weren't so disruptive, nor was their absence if you used inherent bonuses to make up the 'maths' expectations, but the criticism was that items weren't a source of excitement anymore.

5e returns to the 1e/2e paradigm - items are potentially game-breaking and character-redefining - but it doesn't go as far in assuming them (lack of a magic weapon could doom a 1e PC vs the wrong monster, not so much in 5e, for instance). In theory, 5e 'works' without items, and 'breaks' with them, thus making them exciting, but not necessary.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sorry for interrupting your ramblings there Tony, but what it boils down to is this:

While 3e might ultimately fail, they at least tried.

Not only doesn't 5e not try, it wants to be patted on the back for it as well.

Not only does 5e simply give up on trying to have an uptime gold outlet, they even try to sell this inability, this non-starter, as a good thing. [emoji20]

Sorry for the interruption. I just couldn't have you mince the words so they both look much the same, when one tries and the other does not.

When one gets flak for trying while the other wants applause for selling us nothing.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Do you mean unable to buy magic items? That is one of the key things that broke 3E and 4E was easy access to magic items. Mostly due to how they interact with feats (or even ability scores in 5E).

The Gauntlets most do not matter, it +1 to hit and damage generally, +4 or so dfor classes where it won't matter that much. The con one is a lot better, the strength one is better for MAD type PCs such as Clerics and even then its mostly +2 to hit and damage on meh attacks anyway.

Its only really a problem if you know that you can buy items and build your PC accordingly (AL or knowledge of LMOP).

 

[Henry]

3e has a lot of great qualities, but managing the math at level 10+ isn't one of them, and a lot of this problem can be laid at the feet of stacking bonuses -- so much so that one looks at a current-gen 3.x heir like Starfinder, and see that the designers RABIDLY guard the keys to the combat bonus kingdom, for fear of players repeating the 3.x and Pathfinder faux pas of rapid escalation.

To this end, you don't see items such as +2 or +4 gauntlets, and easily available +1 or higher weapons, because for purposes of keeping the reins on, a set static score or a reroll is better than a straight bonus, because it keeps the bondaries in place.

RE: magic item shopping - I allow it in my 5e games, but I don't allow it in the old sense of "this community has any item up to x,000 gold pieces". I allow a limited subset of magic items for purchase in a area, from a short list, and this list changes regularly (say, once a week). Is it harder work? Sure! But it's worth it because (1) I don't let them have access to truly game breaking items in this way (mostly potions or one-shot items), (2) it adds an organic sense to the campaign, as items are bought and sold, and one week you have an item for sale but the next week it's gone because someone bought it or the merchant moved, and (3) it does give a gold reward sink for stuff (even uncommon items cost 500gp or higher!) that makes the players feel good when they finally have enough to purchase that item they had an eye on.