Just say NO to buff items, the crack of D&D.

[clash429]

The issue of buffing or not is rather mute. We, as the realativistic gods of our little fantasy demi-planes, have the power to do what we want. The best possible system is to discuss with your players ahead of time what you plan to do and then be as consistant as possible (Give a monster a fighting chance!). If your group is cool, they should be willing to give you the benifit of the doubt on whichever side of the issue you stand. If you don't want it, don't use it. If someone else wants it, let them use it in their own campaign. If your players are whiners, follow scholz's lead and hand out creative, original swag. Just be sure the players have to pry it from the cold, dead fingers, claws, talons, psuedopods, etc. of your villians.

 

[FireLance]

There are so many options. I cringe whenever I see headbands of intellect, or gloves of dexterity. Those things ruin the flavor of magic. The game becomes a pen and paper video game, instead of being a story telling game.

Well, this same comment could apply not only to buff items, but also to generic +x magic swords, armor and shields, generic +x cloaks of resistance and generic +x rings of protection.

I'm not sure how having these items makes a game a video game, though. Is it the possibility of "powering up"? If so, any game that gives characters the ability to increase in power and ability is like a video game. Is it because they are generic? If generic mundane longswords don't make a game a video game, and neither should generic magic swords. Is it because there is more focus on the items than the characters, or every character has the same equipment? Well, I'm afraid that's a player problem. Take away the items and you'll still have boring characters.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

If you want to persuade people away from them.

One version I've seen is that the boosts need to be 'tuned' to the target - easy to use spells for that, but means items need to be custom built for the user. If you use one that isn't for you - then an 'interferance' penalty of some sort can apply. Means they're on commission only. Perhaps for an item you need to 'research' the user for a week per +1 - now try talking a wizard into giving up that much of their time!

Another is what Ars Magica did with stat boosting items/long term spells. They're addictive and cause the stat they're based on to waste away. If you use them now and again they're pretty useful, but not earth shattering - all the time and you're going to have some problems.

IMC, we went for stats on even numbered levels. Simple answer - can't raise the same stat twice in a row. Keeps everything about right so far. But we're playing some funny magic item house rules anyway.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The issue of buffing or not is rather mute.

Just in case you are interested the proper word is moot (which comes from the sorta town councils, called "moots" who would meet to resolve problems in c9-10th century England).

I only mention it because i think it is an interesting word and wasn't sure whether you had mis-heard it at one point hence used the term for "unable to speak". Rarely a condition on messageboards, naturally

 

[Geoff Watson]

How often has your party monk come to blows with the rogue over a set of gloves of dexterity +2? How many times have you seen the sad, sad sight of the party paladin gutting the sorcerer for a cloak of charisma +4? And then there's the party's halfling wizard, who just wants the girdle of giant strength +4 so he can be strong enough to carry his own spellbook. Alas, the party barbarian goes into a rage and dumps the poor halfling's body outside of town...

Why don't they just buy their own?
Or do you always play CE characters?

Geoff.

 

[comrade raoul]

Why don't they just buy their own?

In lots of games -- certainly the ones I play in -- we think the notion of a "magical supermarket" is ridiculous and magical items ought to be exotic or special. You can't "just buy" them.

 

[Zad]

This really doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You're saying that stat enhancers are bad because players fight over them? And you're saying that shorter buff spells are bad because it makes players fight more?

Your premise seems flawed. The problem seems to be more about the availability of magic items in the campaign, or perhaps the party's treasure distribution system.

Distribution: Let's say there's a +2 stat booster, and 10,000gp. So the market value of the +2 item is 4,000gp. Total pot is 14,000gp and divide that among everyone in the group. If someone wants the +2 item, they can "buy" it out of the pot. If there's competition, you could offer to pay more for it.

Availbility: D&D has certain base assumptions. If you alter those assumptions, you change the fundamental game mechanics. For instance, if you award exp at a slower rate, you will find you have overly rich players for their level. It will take them more encounters to get a given level, but unless you altered the treasure distribution they have more money built up over that level.

The point is that there is a general assumption that you can buy magic items at the approximate prices listed. Sometimes it's harder or easier to find or comission. Sometimes prices vary. But there's a fundamental belief that players can purchase magic. If they can't, then they end up unable to face creatures that are appropriate for their level because they aren't equipped properly for their level (according to the basic assumptions of the game.)

Look at the iconic characters - a level 15 ranger is assumed to have a certain level of magical gear. If you don't allow access to that, then the character is weaker than the game assumes he will be. This isn't bad provided you alter the challenges appropriately.

Your problem really has nothing to do with stat boosters as I see it. If you want to make such things harder to come by in your world, that's fine. Just alter the challenges facing the party appropriately and go. Ranting about them here doesn't seem to be very productive though.

 

[Turanil]

My solution is to ban all attribute enhancing spells, except for bull's strength, and just rename it "strength" ala 1e. I absolutely hate to see characters running around with attributes in the 30s. Next, I may put a max of 25 for humans/demihumans stats, as well. The game is about heroes, not freaks who can bench press 18 wheelers. If your character is stronger than the fire giant, what's the point? I can beat up a 3 year old, but I (usually) don't bother.

I agree 100% with this, and I agree almost 100% with this thread: Buff items do not bring anything to the game, in term of "enjoyability". While magical items are very important to a good heroic fantasy story, Buff items really do not improve the story in any way. When a character gets Buff items, the DM must increase / improve the monsters and that's it. Basically, in terms of role-playing and story it adds nothing.

In fact I am for giving players real magical items, not roll-dice buffers. I did write an article on this subject a while ago. You can download it here:
About Magical items PDF.zip (8 ko)
This article gives some advice to make magical items more interesting and less unbalancing. A common problem of the game.

 

[PowerWordDumb]

Cyberzombie has the right of it! Game-destroying balance tweaks that do nothing but reduce game flavor and titilate the pencil-pusher gamers are the bane of 3.5!

I will happily join your crusade against game-destroying balance and appeasements to the accountants amongst us! Right on!

 

[el-remmen]

I just cannot wrap my mind around thinking of magical items in terms of GP value, and I refuse to even try.

It is one of the failings of 3E to my mind. I understood what they were trying to accomplish, but I think in the end it caused more trouble than it solved in regards to magical items in the game.