D&D 5E DMG - breaking bounded accuracy already?

[keterys]

I've seen several players pass up stat items because they weren't effective for them because they'd already invested in that stat, so they've gone to those who had not invested (ex: 8 str warlock or cleric). After all, going from 8 to 19 is a big darn deal. 18 to 19 does nothing, especially if you plan to go to 20 in a couple levels.

Depending on the campaign it encourages you to bypass your favored stat (why increase from a 16, just wait for the first stat item), retrain a stat lower (Well, I had a 10-12 Int but then found a 19 Int belt, so sure 8 is fine), etc. Its effects are lame, from every perspective. It encourages bad behavior, for no real gain to the system.

It's not a deal breaker. It's just unfortunate.

What is a deal breaker for me are the Str belts as written. They're literally the most disappointing thing in the entire system for me, that they made it through playtest like that. They may never affect my games*, but it says a lot to me about how the game was designed, and how playtest feedback was considered.

* As a DM, sure. As a player, I imagine it will come up eventually.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The only ones that really bugged me were the belt of giantkind and shields getting enhancement bonuses (over +1).

Belt because:
1) it's only one stat out of all the stats, making for class balance disparity

there are headbands of int and gloves of dex too...

 

[Sacrosanct]

Depending on the campaign it encourages you to bypass your favored stat (why increase from a 16, just wait for the first stat item),.

That's another thing I don't understand. If a player gimps him or herself assuming they'll get a stat increase item? They will probably be disappointed. I won't actively prevent such an item, but I won't cater to the player either.

 

[Jaelommiss]

I think it's worth considering just how rare (according to the random tables) a set of +3 plate is if we are going to worry about players getting an absurdly high AC. I will focus on +3 Plate, though similar excercises could be used to see how long it will take to get any 'problem' magical item.

According to the typical magic item thread, a party can expect four legendary magic items from level 1-20. Assuming a levelling rate of one level per four sessions, and one session per week, we can expect one legendary item every 20 weeks. Of course, it will be far more likely to have one every four weeks for the final sixteen weeks, but by the time we get to a 50% chance of having found the set of plate the difference will be negligible.

Every 20 weeks you get a single shot at magic item table I. The plate is obtained by first rolling 76 on your percentile, and then 12 on a d12 to determine the exact armour found. That's a 1/1200 chance of actually getting the armour you want. That could also be written as 0.083%. Given four shots per campaign, you have a 0.33% chance of finding +3 plate.

To figure out just have many rolls on Table I we need to get a 50% chance of having seen a set of +3 plate, we'll use the equation 0.50=[1-(1/1200)]^x. This can be rewritten as x = ln(0.5)/ln(0.999167), and when solved give us 831.76. We'll round that up to 832.

Just how long will it take us to roll 832 times on Table I? Well, given that we roll an average of once every 20 weeks, that means that after 16640 weeks, or just shy of 320 years there will be a 50% chance that we will have seen that armour. In that time we will have completed 208 campaigns from level 1-20. We also will have found an average of 25 Vorpal Swords.

If +3 Plate is that rare, then I will not waste any time worrying about possible ways it could be abused. If my players are willing to play weekly for over three centuries, they've earned it.

 

[keterys]

there are headbands of int and gloves of dex too...

Strangely enough, a 19 is a lot less of an issue than a 29, when you can get a 20 naturally.

 

[keterys]

That's another thing I don't understand. If a player gimps him or herself assuming they'll get a stat increase item? They will probably be disappointed. I won't actively prevent such an item, but I won't cater to the player either.

There's a reason I said "Depending on the campaign".

Sometimes you know you have a campaign where magic item creation will be allowed. Sometimes you even have a vague idea what treasure is in the campaign.

For example, if I decide to play Adventurer's League I know I can get Gauntlets of Ogre Power or a Headband of Intellect with trivial ease from a level 1-4 adventure. I also know that campaign allows you to retrain your ability scores up to 4th level (so that people can start play with a pregen then customize the character at home once they have a book, for example). That might influence some decisions I make. I'd rather it didn't, but that doesn't mean it won't.

Worse, I know at least one case where someone retrained to an 8 ability score after acquiring a 19 stat item.

 

[the Jester]

Depending on the campaign it encourages you to bypass your favored stat (why increase from a 16, just wait for the first stat item), retrain a stat lower (Well, I had a 10-12 Int but then found a 19 Int belt, so sure 8 is fine), etc.

Assuming that the DM caters to such silly assumptions.

More likely, the guy who is playing a Str 16 fighter, waiting for that belt of giant strength to come up, will finally be like, "Damn, guess now that I'm 14th level, I ought to bump my Strength score. It's just not worth waiting on the off chance that the perfect magic item for me falls into our hands!"

Its effects are lame, from every perspective. It encourages bad behavior, for no real gain to the system.

Only if the player in question is assured of getting that item eventually (be it a set of gloves of dexterity or a headband of intellect or whatever).

If the DM doesn't cater to the pcs when dispensing magic items- and really, this is about as catery of a scenario as I can envision- it's not an issue. It's really not. Because that fighter ain't counting on EVER finding a girdle of giant strength.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I suppose one could use the 3.x Gauntlets or ability items (+2,+4,+6). This thread is a testament that the 20 hard cap isn't written in stone. Without auto-crafting, magicmart, or wealth-by-level it is just another option they didn't bother reprinting.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There's a reason I said "Depending on the campaign".

Sometimes you know you have a campaign where magic item creation will be allowed. Sometimes you even have a vague idea what treasure is in the campaign.

For example, if I decide to play Adventurer's League I know I can get Gauntlets of Ogre Power or a Headband of Intellect with trivial ease from a level 1-4 adventure.

You do huh? I guess the rest of the players at the table with you don't have a say in the matter as to who gets the item?

 

[keterys]

I think it's worth considering just how rare (according to the random tables)

For both good and ill, the random tables aren't generally how D&D works.

Published adventures determine what treasures a lot of DMs have, for starters. Whether they're a set piece of the campaign or one-off, they make a big difference. For example, I sat at a table with some people whose characters had gone through Phandelin and some whose characters had gone through something a bit stingy, and there was some resentment at the table when the melee beater guy whose only magic was a wand of detect magic or the shapeshifting druid whose only magic item was a headband of intelligence (it gave her a bonus to investigate at least) eyed the guys with 6 magic items each including armor, weapon, gauntlets of ogre power, and miscellaneous utility items.

DMs also just assign treasure, ignoring those charts - sometimes with great understanding of the impact, and often without knowing or caring. Some because they want an NPC to use it. "The Black Knight has +3 shield and +3 armor cause I want him to have a really good AC" is going to happen at some table somewhere. Some because it just feels right. "Lancelot's tomb has to have a weapon, shield, and armor in it. And they should be awesome. Duh"