D&D 5E Amulet of Health, Another Strong Item

[billd91]

Even back then, we were "roll and assign." So, yes, if someone put a decent score into strength, then got a pair of gauntlets, they felt kind of dumb.

It's not a huge deal in and of itself, although getting a magical item as a reward and feeling dumb because of it certainly isn't optimal.

But, in the process of feeling dumb, they realize that the magical item has more mechanical impact than the choices that defined their character. Maybe that excites some people, but it's certainly not what we were looking for in a game, even back then.

I don't think the process of deciding who should get the item makes it cause any less of a problem.

Especially with the amulet of health; it really should go to the person with the lowest Con. I know for my players, it wouldn't take long for them to realize that the person with the lowest Con just got bumped up to near the top because they had the lowest Con.

It's not going to warp how they build their characters, but I have it admit it feels totally backwards.

For me, it feels perfectly normal and a much better alternative than the fairly feeble stat boosters of 3e that don't tend to go to the PCs who need it most but instead concentrate the increasing modifiers. We never felt dumb if we rolled a high strength but managed find gauntlets of ogre power - mostly because we gave the gauntlets to someone who didn't roll so well and spread the physical punch of the group around. I ended up with a druid with gauntlets of ogre power (he starting strength was a 16 so she got a substantial boost) and she became a much more effective melee force because of it.

As far as who should get the amulet of health, that depends. We might have given it to a fighter with a decent Con but who had been rolling terrible with his hit points.

 

[billd91]

My issue is that the amulet of health is vastly better than gauntlets of ogre power or headband of intellect, yet they are the same rarity. The party is almost guaranteed to have somebody who'll see a huge hit point boost from the amulet, but it's unlikely anyone is going to get significant benefit from the gauntlets or headband.

While it might be true for the headband since fewer characters depend on intelligence compared to constitution, I don't think it's the case with strength. I think there's a reason 1e/2e had multiple major strength boosters and very few boosters of any other stat and that's because nearly all PCs will get a benefit of boosting their strength as they adventure - nearly as many as will benefit from constitution - and in a flashier manner too (and flashy is pretty good).

Now, if intelligence checks, knowledge skills, and intelligence saves are common in a campaign - and they certainly could be emphasized - then the benefit of the headband of intellect for everyone will grow. So I do find a lot of these arguments a bit campaign and style dependent.

 

[Agamon]

It's not arbitrary at all; it's based on the item's general utility. Given the choice between a wand of magic detection, goggles of night, and gauntlets of ogre power, I can see a reasonable party choosing any of the three (well, okay, the goggles would probably win out most of the time, but not by a lot).

Add an amulet of health to the list, and it becomes a no-brainer for 99% of parties. You can have free magic detection; you can have 60-foot darkvision for one PC; you can give one PC +4 to +5 on Athletics checks and Strength saves; or you can give one PC a 30-40% hit point boost and +2 to +3 on Con saves. Those aren't even in the same ballpark.

It's arbitrary because it's based upon your own personal opinion on what is better. Whereas basing it on the fact that all of the ability items do the same thing with different scores is not based on opinion at all.

 

[Remathilis]

Especially with the amulet of health; it really should go to the person with the lowest Con. I know for my players, it wouldn't take long for them to realize that the person with the lowest Con just got bumped up to near the top because they had the lowest Con.

It's not going to warp how they build their characters, but I have it admit it feels totally backwards.

In our group, we'd give it to someone who was going to be in combat alot, but already didn't have a great Con due to MAD: a ranger, paladin, cleric or rogue perhaps. The fighter or barbarian might already be close to that number, and it seems like a waste on the mage (whose going to stay out of melee anyway).

Need before greed, but need =/= having the lowest score.

 

[Dausuul]

It's arbitrary because it's based upon your own personal opinion on what is better. Whereas basing it on the fact that all of the ability items do the same thing with different scores is not based on opinion at all.

You're right. Any magic item which changes a number on your character sheet to 19 must be of equal value. Magic item which changes your hit points to 19? Uncommon. Magic item which changes your attack bonus to 19? Uncommon. Magic item which changes your level to 19? Uncommon. Trying to say that some of these are wildly better than others... well, that's just your opinion, man. Totally arbitrary.

The ability scores all serve different functions in the game. There is a world of difference between "based on somewhat subjective judgement" and "arbitrary." Any discussion of balance is going to be based on somewhat subjective judgement. That doesn't make it invalid.

 

[Agamon]

You're right. Any magic item which changes a number on your character sheet to 19 must be of equal value. Magic item which changes your hit points to 19? Uncommon. Magic item which changes your attack bonus to 19? Uncommon. Magic item which changes your level to 19? Uncommon. Trying to say that some of these are wildly better than others... well, that's just your opinion, man. Totally arbitrary.

The ability scores all serve different functions in the game. There is a world of difference between "based on somewhat subjective judgement" and "arbitrary." Any discussion of balance is going to be based on somewhat subjective judgement. That doesn't make it invalid.

If you need to strawman to continue this discussion, I suppose it's done. Make the items as rare as you want, no one will be knocking on your door as a consequence.

 

[Dausuul]

While it might be true for the headband since fewer characters depend on intelligence compared to constitution, I don't think it's the case with strength. I think there's a reason 1e/2e had multiple major strength boosters and very few boosters of any other stat and that's because nearly all PCs will get a benefit of boosting their strength as they adventure - nearly as many as will benefit from constitution - and in a flashier manner too (and flashy is pretty good).

Now, if intelligence checks, knowledge skills, and intelligence saves are common in a campaign - and they certainly could be emphasized - then the benefit of the headband of intellect for everyone will grow. So I do find a lot of these arguments a bit campaign and style dependent.

Certainly they are somewhat campaign and style dependent, but we're talking about increasing your hit points by 2-3 times your level, versus getting a big boost to your Athletics and encumbrance. I find it really, really hard to imagine a campaign where those two things stack up remotely close to equal.

I can imagine a campaign where Int skills are more valuable than hit points, but it's a really, really niche campaign; basically the "no combat, all roleplaying" scenario. In that case, though, all kinds of rarities and balance mechanics are going to be out of whack, and a headband of intellect will beat out a +3 sword as well.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think there's a reason 1e/2e had multiple major strength boosters and very few boosters of any other stat and that's because nearly all PCs will get a benefit of boosting their strength as they adventure - nearly as many as will benefit from constitution - and in a flashier manner too (and flashy is pretty good).

It probably had more to do with AD&D intentionally weighting the magic item tables to deliver more items of value to Fighters, to help 'balance' them at higher levels vs the ever-expanding spellpower of casters. Also, the classic STR items were class-restricted so, by definition, couldn't apply to all characters.

 

[ExploderWizard]

In our group, we'd give it to someone who was going to be in combat alot, but already didn't have a great Con due to MAD: a ranger, paladin, cleric or rogue perhaps. The fighter or barbarian might already be close to that number, and it seems like a waste on the mage (whose going to stay out of melee anyway).

Need before greed, but need =/= having the lowest score.

I present the combat alot

 

[MarkB]

I disliked the old girdles of giant strength because they wiped away your choices. Suddenly, your choice to play a weak character by assigning a low score to strength became completely irrelevant.

In a way, I think 5e's equivalents are actually worse, because the people with good scores (read: 20s) won't get any benefit from them. So they'll naturally trickle down to the party members with the worst scores.

Cheers!
Kinak

Actually, I think they open up choices in a 5e game, by making multiclass combinations more viable. They're never going to be particularly useful to a character for whom they boost a primary stat, but by giving them to a character for whom they're boosting a useful secondary stat, you're opening up new an interesting avenues of advancement for that character.