D&D General Belts of Giant Strength?

[Zardnaar]

So I've got a new player joining at level 10. He's experienced and showed me his character sheet etc. He needed some magic items. I said wishlist very rare, two rares and not to worried about uncommonss. Think I vetoed a rod but okayed a frost brand or belt of giant strength 23.

Of course he has 16 strength after GWM. His two rares I okayed a cloak of displacement and a flametongue sword.

There probably only 7 sessions left maybe even 1 if everyone calls it.

Generally I veto to many synergies or abusing the rules a bit to much. Eg 8 dump start strength + belt of giant strength or in this case +3, and two +2 spell DC items would get vetoed. Or 25 strength belt, vicious weapon ad another powerful item. Best items need to be found not bought or in starting equipment.

Anyway thoughts on belts and similar ability boosting items?

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I dislike the 5e belts of giant strength (and some other comparable items) because instituting a fixed strength ends up making the PC's actual ability score irrelevant. Unlike the gauntlets of ogre power, which set it at 19, the various giant strength ones set strength to scores the character could not even surpass if they dumped all their ASIs into that ability, so that ability is just off the table. I think magic items should (generally) enhance a PC's capabilities, not replace them.

I would not include this type of item in most campaigns. I did once DM for a player who had rolled some very low stats and so wanted to play an artificer who used this sort of item to overcome a disability, and that was pretty cool, but it was a specific thing worked out between us, and was for a short term replacement character anyway. I think these type of items are also cool in one shots. But in a long term campaign with lots of level-ups having an item make an important stat irrelevant rubs me the wrong way not only as a DM but also as a player, as it undermines the significance of how I build my character but is too good to just not use once it's in the mix.

 

[Distracted DM]

Someone around here house-ruled their belts of giant strength to give bonuses, they shared them a month or two back... anyway, yeah I agree with the idea of disliking the "set strength" items, because a player may try to "build" for finding them. The GM is put in the position of either catering to the player's build and rewarding their dump-statting, or saying "well you may find it, you may not" and then the player's unhappy with their character until they find such an item.

This is sort of offset if you allow retraining- the character takes ASIs in strength as desired, and if they find a belt then maybe over some downtimes they move those feats into something else to take advantage of the set strength of the belt.

 

[Horwath]

So I've got a new player joining at level 10. He's experienced and showed me his character sheet etc. He needed some magic items. I said wishlist very rare, two rares and not to worried about uncommonss. Think I vetoed a rod but okayed a frost brand or belt of giant strength 23.

Of course he has 16 strength after GWM. His two rares I okayed a cloak of displacement and a flametongue sword.

There probably only 7 sessions left maybe even 1 if everyone calls it.

Generally I veto to many synergies or abusing the rules a bit to much. Eg 8 dump start strength + belt of giant strength or in this case +3, and two +2 spell DC items would get vetoed. Or 25 strength belt, vicious weapon ad another powerful item. Best items need to be found not bought or in starting equipment.

Anyway thoughts on belts and similar ability boosting items?

for this simple reason, I have changed the "ability" items.

belt of giant STR, various types.

+2 STR(max +2) or 14 STR, whatever is higher
+4 STR(max +4) or 16 STR, whatever is higher
+6 STR(max +6) or 18 STR, whatever is higher

 

[James Gasik]

I think I understand why 5e went back to the AD&D version of the stat boosting items, the Belts of Giant Strength in particular. Nostalgia, yes, but there's more to it.

Players are often led down the path that says they must have the best build, the best bonuses, the best stats. If you play a Fighter, you feel you want 20 in Strength, or Dexterity, or Constitution. If a Wizard, surely, you must have that 20 Int- it's the best possible number, after all, and surely, you'd need that to be the best.

If the items only granted bonuses, it would do nothing to change this. Character advice would still tell you "get X stat as high as possible, then if your DM actually lets you get an item to boost it, you'll have an even higher score!".

There's more to do with ASI's. You could shore up weak points of your character. Acquire Feats for more versatility. I feel "+x" items just feed into this endless loop of needing to specialize, to focus on strengths and ignore everything else. If you knew, as a player, that items that give you a 19 or even higher exist, and you could count on seeing them, maybe there'd be less of a push to dump all your eggs in one basket. Maybe you'd be content with that 16 Strength, which is all you really need- bounded accuracy keeps super high AC's off the table, and what's a point or two of damage? Maybe it makes a difference, most of the time it probably won't.

And sure, most of the stat increasing items won't give you a 20, but I think if you had, as a Wizard, an item that gives you a 19, maybe you'd realize a 20 isn't all that necessary, and you might increase Con or some other useful stat, or take a look at your other options like Feats.

Maybe not, but in all honesty, I've given out items that increase stats in my games, and the main problem is the attunement requirements. "Sure, having a 19 Int is nice", one player said, "but look at what I have to give up!".

So I don't think there's a reason to fear them, or to need to control them all that much. I mean sure, the idea of someone dumping Strength who knows they can get Gauntlets might seem problematic, but they have to play that character to get those Gauntlets (unless you start at higher levels) and it's not like they can't be dispelled, stolen, disenchanted, or destroyed, and then where are you? Or other circumstances that prevent you from using your gear at all times. Maybe something like:

"You're meeting with the First Prince this evening. There'll be entertainment, and a feast. Naturally, you're not going to wear those metal gauntlets, are you?"

 

[Horwath]

I think I understand why 5e went back to the AD&D version of the stat boosting items, the Belts of Giant Strength in particular. Nostalgia, yes, but there's more to it.

Players are often led down the path that says they must have the best build, the best bonuses, the best stats. If you play a Fighter, you feel you want 20 in Strength, or Dexterity, or Constitution. If a Wizard, surely, you must have that 20 Int- it's the best possible number, after all, and surely, you'd need that to be the best.

If the items only granted bonuses, it would do nothing to change this. Character advice would still tell you "get X stat as high as possible, then if your DM actually lets you get an item to boost it, you'll have an even higher score!".

There's more to do with ASI's. You could shore up weak points of your character. Acquire Feats for more versatility. I feel "+x" items just feed into this endless loop of needing to specialize, to focus on strengths and ignore everything else. If you knew, as a player, that items that give you a 19 or even higher exist, and you could count on seeing them, maybe there'd be less of a push to dump all your eggs in one basket. Maybe you'd be content with that 16 Strength, which is all you really need- bounded accuracy keeps super high AC's off the table, and what's a point or two of damage? Maybe it makes a difference, most of the time it probably won't.

And sure, most of the stat increasing items won't give you a 20, but I think if you had, as a Wizard, an item that gives you a 19, maybe you'd realize a 20 isn't all that necessary, and you might increase Con or some other useful stat, or take a look at your other options like Feats.

Maybe not, but in all honesty, I've given out items that increase stats in my games, and the main problem is the attunement requirements. "Sure, having a 19 Int is nice", one player said, "but look at what I have to give up!".

So I don't think there's a reason to fear them, or to need to control them all that much. I mean sure, the idea of someone dumping Strength who knows they can get Gauntlets might seem problematic, but they have to play that character to get those Gauntlets (unless you start at higher levels) and it's not like they can't be dispelled, stolen, disenchanted, or destroyed, and then where are you? Or other circumstances that prevent you from using your gear at all times. Maybe something like:

"You're meeting with the First Prince this evening. There'll be entertainment, and a feast. Naturally, you're not going to wear those metal gauntlets, are you?"

agree with most of it, that is why I kept the fixed amount that items give, but reduced it to reduce cheese builds.
if item gives on +2, it will not be that useful to someone with 8STR, but 14 is a nice STR score for someone that was weak naturally.

item then can be a nice way to "patch up" your bad scores, but not to put them into primary role, unless you have most powerful items. 18 is enough to be primary at higher levels.

 

[Tessarael]

The problem with the Giant Strength magic items is that they go past the maximum of 20 in an ability score. That limit of 20 is there for bounded accuracy. Gauntlets of Ogre Power don't have the same issue as they set Strength to 19, so they will be more balanced.

We had a 5E house rule like this:

• Rare item, requiring attunement, sets ability score to 13, or ability +2 with maximum of 20. Cost 2,000gp.
• Very rare item, requiring attunement, sets ability score to 17, or ability +4 with maximum of 20. Cost 8,000gp.
• Legendary item, requiring attunement, sets ability score to 21. Cost 18,000gp.

If you already have an ability score of say 18, the rare item gives you a total in that ability of 20, and you don't benefit further from the very rare or legendary versions. On the other hand, if you have a low ability score, then you will benefit from the very rare or legendary versions.

Keep in mind that if the character has say Constitution 8, then the rare item boosting Constitution to 12 gives +2 HP/level and +2 to Constitution saves, which is significant. You also might want to say give your animal companion a rare Circlet of Intelligence to boost their Intelligence to 12 for example.

 

[James Gasik]

I don't know that I buy the limit is there for bounded accuracy. I mean magic weapons go from +1 to +3 (with the DMG mentioning higher bonuses are possible on artifacts if memory serves). The game designers have come out to say that accuracy isn't a factor when it comes to monster design (instead it's damage vs. hit points), which is why things like bless aren't busted.

An argument could be made for the damage bonus, but even a +4 for 29 Strength isn't as damaging as, say, the +7 from a rare Flametongue weapon.

 

[cbwjm]

So I've got a new player joining at level 10. He's experienced and showed me his character sheet etc. He needed some magic items. I said wishlist very rare, two rares and not to worried about uncommonss. Think I vetoed a rod but okayed a frost brand or belt of giant strength 23.

Of course he has 16 strength after GWM. His two rares I okayed a cloak of displacement and a flametongue sword.

There probably only 7 sessions left maybe even 1 if everyone calls it.

Generally I veto to many synergies or abusing the rules a bit to much. Eg 8 dump start strength + belt of giant strength or in this case +3, and two +2 spell DC items would get vetoed. Or 25 strength belt, vicious weapon ad another powerful item. Best items need to be found not bought or in starting equipment.

Anyway thoughts on belts and similar ability boosting items?

I like the boosting items, though like you if they are playing a warrior and choose to go 8 strength and replace it with a belt or gauntlets then I'd likely veto that, they should at least have a decent beginning strength with the belt being "found" during their adventuring career.

 

[Tessarael]

Except that a Flame Tongue doing +2d6 fire damage trades off accuracy, as it is not a +3 weapon with +3 to attack and +3 damage. Versus lower AC opponents, yes the Flame Tongue is very good. Versus higher AC opponents, or those with Fire Resistance which is not uncommon, the benefit is not so good.