D&D 5E Power Level of "Raise Stat to 19" Items

[Pauln6]

I don't like them as they are so I tweaked them to be +2 items (capped at the maximum) with secondary effects that make you feel stronger such as the ability to shove creatures up to huge and double carrying capacity.

You can add variations on a theme for other stats and the girdles can be +4.

 

[Charles Rampant]

I agree in general, but I have been in several games where the starting conditions were along the lines of "We're starting at level 5, you have 1000 gp, any mundane items you need, and one uncommon magic item of your choice." In that environment, picking up something like Gauntlets of Ogre Strength is a sneaky good choice for classes with multiple ability score needs like a Paladin, or adding on a nice melee attack to a Cleric or Bladelock.

One thing that I once did for a high level start - I think it was a level 9 party after a TPK in Princes - I myself chose 2 interesting items per character, then gave a list to the party and told them to choose who got what. It worked pretty well, actually; I included some mundane stuff (+1 Mace), some weird stuff (Keightom's Ointment) and some fun stuff (Broom of Flying), the players got to choose, and I got to prevent power gaming temptations. I'd definitely recommend it as a way of doing things.

 

[CapnZapp]

I agree in general, but I have been in several games where the starting conditions were along the lines of "We're starting at level 5, you have 1000 gp, any mundane items you need, and one uncommon magic item of your choice."

That DM has fallen for WotC's bald-faced lie; that rarity can substitute for utility.

Rarity is worthless as a game balancing tool.


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

That's not exactly true. Rarity determines at what level players should generally get these items, and a rough approximation of how long they take to craft and how much they cost...assuming you use those optional rules.

And those rules are utterly useless for that purpose.

Compare to a gold piece value: sure 3rd edition was not perfect, but it sure was infinitely better than this.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

If you have magic item shops, then yes it's a problem. But then, it is probably the least of your problems anyway.

Or so you think.

Please don't perpetuate the falsehood that every group using magic shoppes is having problems.

Far from it; magic shoppes is a solution, not a problem.

It very neatly provides an answer to the question "what can I do with all my gold during the adventure?"

Not to mention how many players find it both fun and interesting to be able to choose their characters' upgrades themselves, rather than merely choosing between loot drops.






Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[TwoSix]

That DM has fallen for WotC's bald-faced lie; that rarity can substitute for utility.

Rarity is worthless as a game balancing tool.

It's actually 2 different DMs, neither are particularly concerned with balance particulars. That being said, there is a general consensus that 3.5/Pathfinder's pricing guidelines were much easier to use.

 

[Thurmas]

This is far more powerful. Orders of magnitude.

Which part? The +2 to strength or the raising the max strength to 22?

The +2 to strength is no different then you would get from an Ioun stone, although that doesn't change your max possible strength. The Max and total strength however, can be changed with belt of giant strength, so I'm not really sure why the change is so drastic.

 

[Pauln6]

I don't mind these, but I also don't allow players to buy magic items outside of potions and scrolls, so I can see how they could be destabilizing.

That being said, I would prefer that the items increased a stat by a range such as +2 or +4 instead of assigning a flat score. It allows them to in fact benefit any character that would want to use them instead of just the characters that wouldn't be good at that stat anyway. I would also want them to raise the max score in that stat above 20 an amount equal to the stat increase (+4 means max stat is now 24).

I think I draw the line at the cap. If an ogre has 19 strength then a human with gauntlets of ogre power should have no more than 19 strength. That's why I'd layer on treating the wearer as large for the purpose of carrying, shoving etc. It gives a tangible benefit that probably favours the kinds of melee characters most likely to want these gloves thematically.

Keeping the cap also allows tangible benefits for different types of girdle of giant strength. you could even do +2 hill (max 21), +3 stone (max 22), +4 frost (max 23), +4 fire (max 25), +4 cloud (max 27), +4 Storm (max 29). In 1e the girdles also allowed the wearer to hurl boulders - of limited use but thematic. A longer throwing distance was allowed for stone giants to help distinguish from frost giants. It's a shame that they could not leave more room in the giant stats to retain more distinctiveness.

 

[jgsugden]

There is really only one place where they break the game a bit: When a high dex melee character takes the high strength items. Then they get the double dip benefit of a high dexterity and strength. Well, also if the character is built to rely upon having the item - a wizard with an 8 Intelligence that knows they'll get the Headband to get their 19 is a bit of a cheat as well...

Otherwise:

1.) If the bonus is for an ability the class uses, the attribute is likely already highish, so raing it from 16 to 19 is not that big of a deal.
2.) If it is a secondary ability, like strength on a cleric, it doesn't really make that much of a dent to see the ability rise to 19 - that is a useable, but not overpowered level.

If I built the items for this edition, I'd have built them more like 4E for uncommon items and then very rare and legendary ones that are stronger:

* Uncommon items that add +2 to an ability score (max 20).
* Very rare items (requires an 18 or higher in the stat - raises to 22).
* Legendary items (requires a 20 or higher in the stat - raises to 24).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Compare to a gold piece value: sure 3rd edition was not perfect, but it sure was infinitely better than this.

It was pretty crazy-broken, really. But, you can't be broken if you're not trying to be whole in the first place, so in that sense, 3e was at least trying for coherent or remotely balanced wealth/level & make/buy, so it was 'better' at that than 5e (in the same sense that going to a medieval surgeon for your headache was better than going to a medieval headsman - the former's skill at healing may have been worse than useless, but he wasn't trying to kill you with a huge ax).

5e design assumes that +1 pinking shears break the game, so use at your own risk. Also, it assumes the game is already broken, so whatever... it's a starting point, just have fun... etc... making up your own wealth/level & make/buy rules is a fine idea, but you might want to make up your own, more balancable items, to go with 'em.