scholz said:
I hope that is not what I said. I think it is silly BECAUSE of its consequences.
The consequences of ubiquitous Stat Boosting Items are...
1. An Arms race between players (and the DM). In order to stay viable it is not enough to go up levels, but one must min-max items (as well as feats and class choices). If you need the stat boost just to stay average (for your level) then you simple raise the bar without providing any actual benefit for acquiring the treasures.
And eliminating stat boosts changes this how? If level one characters need to be able to face orcs, level five characters need to be able to face manticores, level 7 characters chimeras, and level 14s old white dragons, then there's going to be an escalation of power levels. There's no two ways about that. If your level 14 characters are happy facing unleveled orcs, you can eliminate the escalation but otherwise it will be there.
This is not really an arms race. In an arms race, both sides have to develop tougher weapons and armor in order to match threats from the other side. In D&D, the DM already has weapons/armor available for all levels of PCs; the PCs need to develop the capabilities to deal with the ones the DM uses and they expect the DM to use. Unless one is on a fixed schedule of threat advancement (whether or not the PCs advance) this can't be characterized as a race.
Finally, removing elements of item optimization does not decrease the pressure for other optimizations. On the contrary, it increases it. If the PC has x areas that can be optimized in order to survive at APL y and can accomplish that with a degree of optimization Z, then removing an area of optimization so that the PC now has only x-n areas of optimization means that, in order to reach level of effectiveness Y, the PC needs to be optimized to the Z+n instead of simply Z.
Without pseudomathematical terms, it can be expressed like this. ATM, characters need not be perfectly optimized in order to work well in D&D. A fighter 12 with a 16 starting strength (19 after 3 level bumps), vanilla feats (Power attack, cleave, weapon focus, greater weapon focus, weapon specialization, greater weapon specialization, iron will, lightning reflexes, great fortitude, Endurance, Die-hard, Combat Reflexes, and Improved Sunder) can play the role of a fighter perfectly well. Maybe not as well as an Ex-Barbarian 2/Fighter 2/Ranger 2/Paladin 3/Templar 1/Hospitaler 2 with optimized feats and items but certainly well enough to get the job done. If a 12th level Fighter 2/Sorceror 1/Wizard 1/Cleric 2/Bard 4/Ranger 2 with Skill Focus: Underwater basketweaving, Combat Casting, Spell Focus: Divination, and Eschew Materials has trouble filling any role, I would see that as optimization for weakness rather than a lack of optimization. So, there is either no such thing as a non-optimized character--just characters optimized for different things or unsuccessfully optimized--or we have to admit that character number 1 (the fighter 12) is the "non-optimized" base-line of what we expect a 12th level D&D character to be like.
2. Stat Boosters overshadow characters inherent abilities. My concept of a big strong fighter is not some guy with a pair of nice gloves. Not that my concept is the only possible one. But the more items duplicate and replace class abilities, the more likely people become homogenous.
You must be stuck in 2e if you think that 3.x stat boosters make original scores irrelevant. The fighter with strength 16+6 (belt)=22 is still noticably weaker than the half-orc with strength 22+6 (belt)=28. 3.x Statboost items enhance and emphasize class abilities rather than duplicating and replacing them. (Though it must be said that a fighter without a way to increase his strength is likely to be overshadowed by a martial cleric who has many ways to magically increase his strength).
The other methods of dealing with the increasing challenge of higher level D&D are actually more homogenizing. Higher base stats drives everyone closer to the 18,18,18,18,18,18 setting. Conan-style universal stat increases also eliminate some of the stat-pressure by opening feat chains dependent upon secondary stats to everyone.
3. Reduces choices for DMs to give treasures. Am I a bad DM if I don't give out X number of stat boosters every third adventure?
I don't see this at all. There are lots of ways to get stat-boosters other than finding them in random treasure hordes. One can gather information and find people who have them to sell (quite possibly other adventurers who either need to raise cash (maybe for a raise dead) or already have such items), join an order of knighthood or a wizard's guild that provides contacts for the crafting of such items, commission wizards or priests to make them, or take the feats and make them yourself. A DM who refuses to make stat-boosters available despite his players' characters needing them (which may be a real or merely perceived need) is neither more nor less of a good DM than the DM who refuses to make magical halberds available despite the fact that the fighter is specialized in halberds.
However, one ought to point out that a DM who's giving "interesting" or random treasure has a lot of ways to make up for the lack of stat-boosters. Giving the fighter a +3 halberd instead of a +2 halberd is almost the same effect as giving him some gauntlets of ogre power. Giving the rogue +3 mithral chain mail instead of a +2 chain shirt is almost as good (defensively) as giving him gloves of dexterity. The treasure/level guidelines are a guide not a straitjacket. Heck, the DM could even incorporate 2e style items like the Mauler's Arm (a +2 mace that raises the wielder's strength to 18) or Angurvaerdil (+4 longsword that raises wielder's strength to 20) if he wants to avoid standard stat-buffs. (Although such ability score setting items go a long way toward overshadowing characters' base attributes--one of the reasons I prefer the 3e statboost items to 2e ones).
I don't mind the buff spells duration changes that took place in 3.5. 
