New FAQ 23/11/06 [Merged]

[Jhulae]

This is true.

And buying Wis increasing items renders a bonus, and it is worth the cost of that bonus to pay it. But when you tie another fairly important stat to Wis, you make the wealth that you spend on those items work that much harder for you.

The contention is that with a monk's belt, the cash that was already going to be spent upon Wis-increasing items is going to work doubletime. What the monk's belt does is increase the value of Wis-increasing items without increasing the cost. Thus, the problem.

And yet, as we've seen from an actual play experience, it doesn't really make a huge difference in the end.

The 'contention' could also be made that a Charisma boosting item is more powerful in the hands of a sorcerer, as they benefit from more spells per day and a higher save DC, or in the hands of a bard for essentially the same thing.. Therefore, it's 'priced too cheaply' for them, as other classes don't get as much benefit.

Again... Some items benefit certain classes more than others. That doesn't make the prices of those items broken in actual play.

If you don't like the Monk's Belt, great. Don't use it.

Others, as well as myself, don't see the problem.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Jhulae]

Wait, I ask you a question and because you can't answer it, you want me to answer it for you? My first response is "That item cannot possibly exist. I do not allow open-ended bonuses." What's your next question?

Actually, another member of my gaming group and I did work out a price. I just don't care enough to post the formula.

But, here's a hint... it's roughly in the 13k area.

 

[Infiniti2000]

By Infiniti2000's estimation, the monk's belt, esp. when coupled with the above, should make him seriously broken. In play, that hasn't happened at all.

I flat out don't believe you. And, it's not because I think you're lying, it's because that character would be seriously broken IMC.

He is a very effective character, but doesn't dominate the other PCs or the opposition. If I didn't allow the use of action pts (of which I use a very generous system and give PCs 3 per session) to survive a killing blow/effect, he'd have been dead 4 times in 15 sessions.

That's a red herring. Killing characters is easy for a DM. Just because you know how to kill the character (and being able to recite his character from memory like that leads me to believe that you tailor-make encounters for him) does not make it non-broken. You may find it enjoyable or whatever and more power to you, but that's not the argument here.

The other problem I have with your example is all the confounding variables. You have high point buy, nonstandard (i.e. non-book) game style (one encounter per day), and variants. How can we judge anything about the belt which in comparison seems like a minor issue? That's like arguing whether magic missile is broken in an epic-level game.

 

[Felix]

And yet, as we've seen from an actual play experience, it doesn't really make a huge difference in the end.

I'm sorry, I thought you were arguing against the belt's brokeness on a wealth basis. You're now saying that the wealth angle doesn't matter any more because:

Some items benefit certain classes more than others. That doesn't make the prices of those items broken in actual play.

Which is it? Does the price of things relative to their value matter or not?

And testimonial does not by any means make an argument conclusive.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Saying that the cost is irrelevant makes your argument specious. Unless you're playing in a campaign with limitless wealth (for example, the classic 'Monty Haul' campaign), saying that the cost of getting such a high wisdom (and total armor class bonus in this particular case) being irrelevant is ludicrous.

It's not specious, I just don't think you are understanding my point. A cleric will max out his wisdom, yes? At the very least, anything he spends on increasing his wisdom has a direct correlation to his power level. The same thing goes for any spellcasting character class. They will virtually always max out the spellcasting stat.

If you then, suddenly, allow that stat to give an unintended side benefit, that portion of the side benefit that is based on the increased ability score is free because the character paid for the increased score for other reasons.

If you don't like the Monk's Belt, great. Don't use it.

I like the monk's belt and I do use it (for NPC's when I DM). I just use it as written.

I just don't care enough to post the formula.

After all this effort, you don't care? Quite honestly, I'm disappointed.

 

[Jhulae]

I'm sorry, I thought you were arguing against the belt's brokeness on a wealth basis. You're now saying that the wealth angle doesn't matter any more because:

Which is it? Does the price of things relative to their value matter or not?

You know, I really do want to think I'm not being misinterpreted intentionally by someone trying to make their own point.

Having my words being twisted is tiring, as I can't see how you inferred your question from my posts, nor can others whom I've showed this thread to. I see no further reason to reply as I think I've made myself clear in previous posts.

 

[Felix]

You know, I really do want to think I'm not being misinterpreted intentionally

So don't.

Having my words being twisted is tiring.

In post 79 you state:

Since you don't seem to want to factor character wealth into the total overall effectiveness of a PC​

It was noted in posts 80 and 85 that the problem is not the wealth, but the increase in value without an increase in costs. To which you reply:

Some items benefit certain classes more than others. That doesn't make the prices of those items broken in actual play.​

Which dodges the question. You've made your point that your opinion is that the item is not broken. What is less clear is why. You mentioned a pricing algorithm for an infinite-bonus item, but don't post it. You engage in a balance-by-wealth argument, are presented with a value-instead-of-wealth rebuttal, and conclude by saying that some items have more value to some classes. You stand on Shilsen's testimonial as fact.

Your opinion is very clear; I do not believe it is terribly rigorous.

I see no further reason to reply as I think I've made myself clear in previous posts.

*Shrug* Goodnight.

 

[Jhulae]

You've made your point that your opinion is that the item is not broken. What is less clear is why. You mentioned a pricing algorithm for an infinite-bonus item, but don't post it. You engage in a balance-by-wealth argument, are presented with a value-instead-of-wealth rebuttal, and conclude by saying that some items have more value to some classes. You stand on Shilsen's testimonial as fact.

Your opinion is very clear; I do not believe it is terribly rigorous.

I've stated 'Why' before, because the bonus is so very easily removed. An NPC could negate the bonus to AC with a 1st level spell. It is very easily removed at even higher Spell levels.

To totally wring the maximum benefit from this item, one has to spend just about all of their wealth on it. While the price of the belt isn't increasing, the amount spent to make it totally optimal does increase. A "One Trick Pony" usually ends up as a dead pony.

@Infiniti2000: When your cleric, who's given up his armor because the belt is so much better, and my cleric who hasn't given up her armor and shield both enter an antimagic field together, who's in better shape?

 

[Felix]

An NPC could negate the bonus to AC with a 1st level spell.

Out of curiousity, which spell would that be?

Would it be similar to the way Ray of Enfeeblement can reduce a heavy-armor wearing character to a stationary pile of flesh and metal?

To totally wring the maximum benefit from this item, one has to spend just about all of their wealth on it.

Do your spellcasters not spend a large portion of their wealth increasing their main casting statistic? If they do, then they are not spending extra money on the belt, they are merely reaping an additional benefit from wealth they would have spent anyway.

When your cleric, who's given up his armor because the belt is so much better, and my cleric who hasn't given up her armor and shield both enter an antimagic field together, who's in better shape?

I2k's cleric doesn't have to outrun the bugbladder beast, he simply has to outrun your cleric. Which he can.

And for a similarly slanted question: the same two clerics run into a hive of rust monsters; who is in better shape?

Scenarios like this can be contrived to suit either argument; they prove nothing but that the contriver is able to.

 

[Jhulae]

Out of curiousity, which spell would that be?

Would it be similar to the way Ray of Enfeeblement can reduce a heavy-armor wearing character to a stationary pile of flesh and metal?


Do your spellcasters not spend a large portion of their wealth increasing their main casting statistic? If they do, then they are not spending extra money on the belt, they are merely reaping an additional benefit from wealth they would have spent anyway.


I2k's cleric doesn't have to outrun the bugbladder beast, he simply has to outrun your cleric. Which he can.

And for a similarly slanted question: the same two clerics run into a hive of rust monsters; who is in better shape?

Scenarios like this can be contrived to suit either argument; they prove nothing but that the contriver is able to.

Oh, I guess with a Mithril Breastplate, we're actually running the same speed. And I have a better AC. And yes, we can toss back and forth with the scenarios, which makes any further debate pointless.

Yet, why don't we see many clerics or druids taking a 1 level dip into monk? At 20th level, all that's really lost is a couple of spells for the cleric. A druid might lose more because of the wildshape. But really? A cleric gets *so* much more from a one level dip into monk. And, that cleric also has 13k more to spend on other stuff! I mean, you're boosting your wisdom up to the absolute maximum anyway, yes? What's to lose! Even a MDJ wont' take away your +12 boost to AC with the one level dip, nor an AMF... Really, that seems like a *much* better option than buying an item.