Altering stat-boosting magic items

[Kerrick]

I'll keep this short and sweet, because I don't feel like writing a long post.

I was thinking of changing most of the stat-boosting items so they provided a bonus to checks instead of the ability itself. For example, an amulet of health provides a +2/+4/+6 bonus to Con-based checks and saves - Concentration, Fort saves, and Con checks, but not Constitution itself.

This was done for a couple reasons:

1) Simplicity. If the item suddenly goes kaput (disjunction, antimagic field, or simply removed), it's a lot easier to calculate its effects. This goes double for mental stat-boosting items that can add spells.

2) Balance. DMs no longer have to account for PCs with huge amounts of stat-boosting items. Also, this would help curb the "Big 6" syndrome.

(I did say "most of" the items; I would keep things like gauntlets of ogre power that add minor bonuses as they are. This is mainly aimed at the standard +2/+4/+6 items. Prices will, obviously, have to be changed; I'm thinking half the original price is about right.)

 

[ValhallaGH]

Prices will, obviously, have to be changed; I'm thinking half the original price is about right.

Well, you're only granting about half the utility but you're doubling the bonuses, so leaving the costs alone is probably fine.

Example: +6 to CON is a +3 to hp per level, Fort saves, Concentration checks, Constitution checks; though it is a +6 to the amount of survivable CON damage. As you've described the changes, it would now grant +6 to Fort saves, Concentration checks, and Constitution checks; losing the +3 hp per level and +6 survivable constitution damage seems a fair trade for doubling the other bonuses.

 

[Sadrik]

Well what do they do then?
STR -> To hit and damage, skills, encumbrance?
DEX -> AC, Ref,
CON -> Fort, HP, Skills
INT -> bonus skill points, bonus spells, skills
WIS-> Will, bonus spells, skills
CHA -> Bonus spells, skills

 

[Kerrick]

Well, you're only granting about half the utility but you're doubling the bonuses, so leaving the costs alone is probably fine.

Example: +6 to CON is a +3 to hp per level, Fort saves, Concentration checks, Constitution checks; though it is a +6 to the amount of survivable CON damage. As you've described the changes, it would now grant +6 to Fort saves, Concentration checks, and Constitution checks; losing the +3 hp per level and +6 survivable constitution damage seems a fair trade for doubling the other bonuses.

Yeah, forgot about that.

Well what do they do then?
STR -> To hit and damage, skills, encumbrance?
DEX -> AC, Ref,
CON -> Fort, HP, Skills
INT -> bonus skill points, bonus spells, skills
WIS-> Will, bonus spells, skills
CHA -> Bonus spells, skills

That's what they did before (which is a lot). With my change, all they would affect is skill/ability checks and saves.

 

[Hawken]

That's what they did before (which is a lot). With my change, all they would affect is skill/ability checks and saves.

Then why bother? There are already magic items out there that boost skills and saving throws. You're not adding anything new or more efficient/simple or solving a problem. There are already rules out there for combining magical effects (skill bonuses + saving throw bonuses). That may be a neat idea just automatically pricing at the same cost as a stat-boosting item, but then you render the individual skill bonus items and save bonus items worthless.

Why get boots that give +5 to Climb for 2,500gp, when I can get something that gives me +2 to Climb, Swim, and Jump and Fort saves for 4,000gp. --Presuming you mean for all stats to provide a save bonus (Str/Con for Fort; Int/Dex for Ref, Wis/Cha for Will) just to keep things evenly valued and to prevent only Dex, Con and Wis items being made (why would someone buy a Str item that doesn't boost Str and doesn't get a save modifier when they could buy a Dex item that modifies more skills AND a saving throw for the same price?).

The easiest way to do what you're wanting to do is just have the bonus apply to everything that the stat affects, rather than modify the stat itself. The only exception being items that affect saving throws, in that case, half the listed bonus applies, otherwise Resistance items become devalued.

Example:
Hawken the Elven Ranger of Awesomeness has Con 16. He finds Kerrick's Belt of Healthiness +4. Rather than actually increasing his Con to 20, the belt does the following:
**+4 HP/level.
**+4 bonus to Constitution based ability and skill checks.
**+2 bonus to Fort saves.

What about ability score loss/drain/damage? Well, that's easy enough to remedy and in a way that works as well or better than actually increasing the ability score. Whenever the wearer of a stat boosting item is subject to any effect that would reduce the modified ability score, the magic item negates the first number of points lost in a 24hr period equal to the full amount of the bonus it provides.

Example: Sadrik the Assassin poisons Hawken who fails his Fort save (very bad roll of the dice). Hawken rolls d6 Con damage and gets a 6 (the dice hate Hawken today). Because of Hawken's belt (see above example), Hawken only loses 2 pts of Con, dropping from a 16 to a 14 while the belt negates the first 4 points of the poison. Now, 9 rounds later, Hawken has to make another save, but the belt can't negate any more Con damage until the next day.

Now, what about items that boost the primary stat of a spellcaster? That solution is simple too. For a +2 item, a spellcaster is able to cast/prepare 1 extra bonus spell (as if his stat WERE higher). This extra spell is of 1st or 2nd level (whatever the caster has access to). For a +4 item, the caster gets the benefits of a +2 item, but also gets a second bonus spell of either 3rd or 4th level that they can cast each day. For a +6 item, the caster gets the benefit of a +4 item, but also gets to a third bonus spell of either 5th or 6th level that they can cast each day. Again, these bonus spells are gained only if they can cast spells of those levels. So, a 1st level character that somehow gets a +6 item, would have to gain many levels to get the full benefit of the item, as far as spellcasting goes, but would still gain a bonus 1st level spell each day.

You could even change the bonus spells to:
+2 item: 1st-3rd level bonus spell
+4 item: 4th-6th level bonus spell
+6 item: 7th-9th level bonus spell

Whatever you like. You're getting fewer bonus spells this way, but that is mitigated somewhat by being able to select on a daily basis what level of bonus spell(s) you want. Also, it provides a static benefit, rather than a +4 hat giving a wizard X amount of bonus spells while the same hat gives a different wizard Y amount of bonus spells.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

(I did say "most of" the items; I would keep things like gauntlets of ogre power that add minor bonuses as they are. This is mainly aimed at the standard +2/+4/+6 items. Prices will, obviously, have to be changed; I'm thinking half the original price is about right.)

I may be reading this wrong, but are you suggesting that gauntlets of ogre power are not one of the standard 2/4/6 Str items, in all but name?

 

[ValhallaGH]

I may be reading this wrong, but are you suggesting that gauntlets of ogre power are not one of the standard 2/4/6 Str items, in all but name?

Technically, they're the +2 step in the 2/4/6 Strength item, after that it goes to a Belt for the +4 and +6. Which is odd, though fitting when you realize that Thor was the inspiration for both items.

 

[Kerrick]

The easiest way to do what you're wanting to do is just have the bonus apply to everything that the stat affects, rather than modify the stat itself.

That was my intent, yeah.

The only exception being items that affect saving throws, in that case, half the listed bonus applies, otherwise Resistance items become devalued.

Example:
Hawken the Elven Ranger of Awesomeness has Con 16. He finds Kerrick's Belt of Healthiness +4. Rather than actually increasing his Con to 20, the belt does the following:
**+4 HP/level.
**+4 bonus to Constitution based ability and skill checks.
**+2 bonus to Fort saves.

That makes more sense.

What about ability score loss/drain/damage? Well, that's easy enough to remedy and in a way that works as well or better than actually increasing the ability score. Whenever the wearer of a stat boosting item is subject to any effect that would reduce the modified ability score, the magic item negates the first number of points lost in a 24hr period equal to the full amount of the bonus it provides.

Example: Sadrik the Assassin poisons Hawken who fails his Fort save (very bad roll of the dice). Hawken rolls d6 Con damage and gets a 6 (the dice hate Hawken today). Because of Hawken's belt (see above example), Hawken only loses 2 pts of Con, dropping from a 16 to a 14 while the belt negates the first 4 points of the poison. Now, 9 rounds later, Hawken has to make another save, but the belt can't negate any more Con damage until the next day.

If the belt doesn't actually increase the wearer's Con, then you don't have to worry about ability damage at all.

Now, what about items that boost the primary stat of a spellcaster?
...

You could even change the bonus spells to:
+2 item: 1st-3rd level bonus spell
+4 item: 4th-6th level bonus spell
+6 item: 7th-9th level bonus spell

I like this solution better, but it steps on the toes of the rings of wizardry. Course, anyone can wear a headband of intellect and a ring of wizardry as it is, so I guess it's not a big deal.

Whatever you like. You're getting fewer bonus spells this way...

Oh darn. Spellcasters won't have as many spells? However will I manage?</sarcasm>

Also, it provides a static benefit, rather than a +4 hat giving a wizard X amount of bonus spells while the same hat gives a different wizard Y amount of bonus spells.

I like that.

I may be reading this wrong, but are you suggesting that gauntlets of ogre power are not one of the standard 2/4/6 Str items, in all but name?

Yeah... I was considering just getting rid of the gauntlets and adding the +2 belt bonus instead. What I might do instead is add the +2 belt and change the gauntlets so they just add +1 to attack/damage (or even +2). It makes little sense that a pair of gauntlets would increase your overall strength, especially since the 1E flavor text said that it made the wearer's hands and arms (only) stronger. The hammer of thunderbolts artifact gains additional abilities for both items, but this wouldn't change it any. Win-win all around.

 

[Hawken]

If the belt doesn't actually increase the wearer's Con, then you don't have to worry about ability damage at all.

In relation to the belt, yes. But you still have to deal with actual drains. This idea would be completely optional, but it could be reasoned that something that improves one's 'effective' stat without changing the 'actual' stat, might be able to mitigate some debilitating effects on that stat. If this seems like too much, just disregard. It seemed like a reasonable idea when I came up with it at the time.

I like this solution better, but it steps on the toes of the rings of wizardry. Course, anyone can wear a headband of intellect and a ring of wizardry as it is, so I guess it's not a big deal.

If this is true, then Headbands of Intellect already 'step on the toes' of Rings of Wizardry since the increased Intelligence provides for increased bonus spells anyway.

Oh darn. Spellcasters won't have as many spells? However will I manage?</sarcasm>

One of the mods warned me about sarcasm and told me to ignore it. So, ignore...ignore...ignore...!

Yeah... I was considering just getting rid of the gauntlets and adding the +2 belt bonus instead. What I might do instead is add the +2 belt and change the gauntlets so they just add +1 to attack/damage (or even +2). It makes little sense that a pair of gauntlets would increase your overall strength, especially since the 1E flavor text said that it made the wearer's hands and arms (only) stronger. The hammer of thunderbolts artifact gains additional abilities for both items, but this wouldn't change it any. Win-win all around.

In 1E, I believe the gauntlets bumped Str up to 18/00 which was about as rare an accomplishment as a PC getting a 30 Str nowadays. I don't think it affected encumbrance, but the +3 to hit and +6 damage it provided was darn sweet back in those days!

Or you could keep the gauntlets AND make a +2 belt (since you're recalling 1E, there were 5 different types of giant belts anyway) AND have the gauntlets and the belt STACK! Or just change the effects of the belt and have it do what 1E did and just bump STR up to a flat 18. Maybe change it to the price of a +4 stat item if you do that.

 

[Kerrick]

In relation to the belt, yes. But you still have to deal with actual drains. This idea would be completely optional, but it could be reasoned that something that improves one's 'effective' stat without changing the 'actual' stat, might be able to mitigate some debilitating effects on that stat. If this seems like too much, just disregard. It seemed like a reasonable idea when I came up with it at the time.

Yeah, I thought it was a little complex.

One of the mods warned me about sarcasm and told me to ignore it. So, ignore...ignore...ignore...!

That wasn't directed at you. That was a general comment about all the people who bitch about every change bumping up the spellcasters' power.

In 1E, I believe the gauntlets bumped Str up to 18/00 which was about as rare an accomplishment as a PC getting a 30 Str nowadays. I don't think it affected encumbrance, but the +3 to hit and +6 damage it provided was darn sweet back in those days!

They did, and it was. Gauntlets of ogre power were THE item to have for fighters.

Or you could keep the gauntlets AND make a +2 belt (since you're recalling 1E, there were 5 different types of giant belts anyway) AND have the gauntlets and the belt STACK! Or just change the effects of the belt and have it do what 1E did and just bump STR up to a flat 18. Maybe change it to the price of a +4 stat item if you do that.

Eh... having it increase the score to a flat number means it'll be a lot more useful for some PCs than others (and not at all for anyone above 17). I think my idea will work well enough - as it is, they don't stack (they're both enhancement bonuses), and I see little reason to change the rules for this one case.