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

[Charles Rampant]

3e has a lot of great qualities, but managing the math at level 10+ isn't one of them, and a lot of this problem can be laid at the feet of stacking bonuses -- so much so that one looks at a current-gen 3.x heir like Starfinder, and see that the designers RABIDLY guard the keys to the combat bonus kingdom, for fear of players repeating the 3.x and Pathfinder faux pas of rapid escalation.

Interesting. I’ve not looked at Starfinder at all, but is there a lot of this going on? Pathfinder and 3.5 are pretty old these days, so it’s interesting to hear that they’ve tried to stay within the wheelhouse but also fix the leaking roof, so to speak.

 

[Caliburn101]

I still marvel at the arguments that seem to stem from a seeming inability to think about what can be in a game if there isn't a specific chapter on it in the rules.

Spending gold is definitely one.

There are so many options that take literally seconds to think of an implement in a 5th Ed. game.

The idea that we need a definitive list of prices for castles, hirelings, mercenary company upkeep, buying an inn or a ship... all the things a rich character could do - well, it might be a useful list, but it wouldn't reflect any particular worlds reality. Buy an Inn in one city and it will be three times the price of one in another - and would need a judgement call from a DM anyway. It's very little extra effort as a DM to just look at the price of a marker item in the equipment list, Google it's price, divide the real world equivalent (let's say a three bedroom house) and then multiply the fantasy version's gold price to get the cost of that cottage in the country for your Warlock too live in.

The same goes for any other purchase.

If you genuinely cannot put stuff in a campaign for adventurers to spend their gold on once they are fully equipped, then you are probably not the kind of DM who world builds, or really thinks about the downtime part of the game. If that si so, no worries - you don't really care about it anyway - so let the useless pile of gold be the object of a bragging rite, or perhaps make gold a rarer reward?

If you can come up with some very basic price-economics for your world - great, problem solved.

There really isn't much an issue either way is there?

 

[Tony Vargas]

There are so many options that take literally seconds to think of an implement in a 5th Ed. game.

The idea that we need a definitive list of prices for castles, hirelings, mercenary company upkeep, buying an inn or a ship... all the things a rich character could do - well, it might be a useful list, but it wouldn't reflect any particular worlds reality....
If you genuinely cannot put stuff in a campaign for adventurers to spend their gold on once they are fully equipped...[/quote] Then you have players who aren't interested in gold outside of what it can buy for their characters. They're out there, it's not an invalid play style.

The key to running for that style is to keep potential rewards on a scale that's relevant throughout the campaign. You can run a campaign about a crew of mercenary adventurers who are perpetually broke, for instance.

Really? No gold outlet whatsoever? Then what the heck have I and my fellow DMs (at my table) been using?

You've been mak'n stuff up. Which, if there's a TrueWay2Play 5e, is it.

I am specifically talking about one thing only: the game supporting those DMs who run published adventures as is (with no or little downtime) and still want game rules that answer the question "what to do with all our gold?"

So you're openly threadjacking. ;P

Seriously, though, the game doesn't support paint-by-numbers DMing. It just doesn't.

What is needed is a robust utility-based magic item gold pricing mechanism....
Instead, those happy with 5e as-is can keep it that way (and can simply not buy this supplement)

What you'd need to get a robust utlity-pricing mechanism is robustly-designed items, and 5e items designs are not that restrained. You'd still need some variation on 'rarity' (as in some items can't be made/bought) or you'd need to scrap existing items and start over.

Those who want balanced support for minimal choice (such as "our campaign begins at 5th level, you get items worth 5000 gp to start you off").

Since the game doesn't assume items, there's no valid assumption of starting with items, just start at any level with standard gold, y'should be fine.

Those who want an uptime gold sink, like me, can offer a random/curated selection of items (using experience to avoid problematic items).

What you need for an uptime gold sink is something the players care about. If that's progressing their characters within a wealth/level magic-items-expected framework - and with 3.x/PF going on two decades of history, we can only assume alot of D&Ders have acclimated to that expectation - 5e should provide a way to do it. That way can't include items designed in the 5e style, it'd need it's own book of items designed with wealth/level scaling in mind - and, probably, variant encounter guidelines and exp to go with it.

Those who want the full d20 gonzo style can accelerate item creation to d20 levels, allowing Wizards to create their own custom stuff and utterly break balance and go wild.

I suppose, for that, you could use 5e items, as well. Anything goes.

Under no circumstances does this mean the game goes back to assuming items or plusses per level

It would absolutely mean that, it'd be an inevitable consequence - if not the whole point - of bringing back a 3e-style magic item economy.

, and it doesn't mean you're forced into any of this. It only means we get an alternative to this charade they call "rarity".

"Rarity" isn't a charade, because it doesn't pretend to be a utility-based pricing formula. It's a pricing formula for games in which gold doesn't matter, and magic items make you just better (which is an understated, but factual, way of saying 'break the game').

5e's meant to be for fans of all past editions. That should (and does) include fans of the classic game who expect magic items to be powerful/exciting/interesting potentially character-defining/game-breaking and entirely under the DM's control. That should (and arguably doesn't) include fans of 3.x/PF who want wealth/level make/buy that lets everyone customize their magic item selection and lets casters burn exp for gold to do so, and thus provides lavish rewards for system mastery. And, yes, that even should (and doesn't) include fans of 4e who want wealth/level & make/buy of items that assumed into balanced scaling and even feasibly opt-out without disrupting that progression.

This is one of the areas where 5e has fallen short. You can't just slap on a pricing system to 5e's classically-designed items and get a 3.x/PF, let alone a 4e, functionality from them. You might get a nice call-back to an old Monty Haul campaign trying that.

 

[Fanaelialae]

You've been mak'n stuff up. Which, if there's a TrueWay2Play 5e, is it.

That's fair but my point, I think, stands. Which is that it was within the context of the guidelines found in the 5e DMG (as opposed to making it up wholesale, or making it up based on the rules from the 1e DMG which were fairly detailed in many respects). And it worked fine.

5e expects a fair bit more rulings than 3e or 4e did (which is why I liken it to the earlier editions). That is, IMO, one of its strengths. 3e and 4e, while I appreciated each in its own time, often had too rigid an approach to the game. IME, broken in 5e means a very different thing than broken did in 3e. Because it can bend, it is less apt to break.

 

[Saeviomagy]

2 handed weapons plus high dex bonuses for bows, initiative, perhaps AC.

How often does someone with a 19 strength and great weapon fighting fall back to a bow? Does he really lower his AC by a point to avoid disadvantage on stealth checks?

I'll give you the initiative, dex saves and skills...

It is a bit like getting 33% extra point buy points. When a 12th level Fighter with a giant strength belt died in a game I was in, the replacement PC was a dex based paladin... For about 5 seconds until he took the belt that had been his prior PCs.

That's more a problem of an item handing out better than maximum stats. I fully agree that for the belts of giant strength, were they to exist at all, they should have been a bonus to an existing stat (that doesn't stack with any other magic).

And even in the situation you describe... is the paladin ever going to fall back to a dex based weapon?

And finally - why the heck did your party hand over a massively powerful magical item to Mr. Rando, the guy who just showed up?

It slipped right by the DM.

And the players apparently!

Assuming he does not begin his career with the headband... a lot of PCs enter games above fifth level and a lot of those start with one or more uncommon items...

And if he just prioritized his most useful stat instead, he could have a better uncommon item, instead of getting a higher tertiary stat. There's a tradeoff being made. He's got a better con or dex score, but I really don't think it's going to be that big a deal.

Also he can't multiclass. That might be kind of a big thing, especially if he's got a high dex, but can't wear armor or use any useful weapons. (although personally I don't play with the stat limits on multiclasses, I also don't give out magic items on demand...)

 

[Tony Vargas]

IME, broken in 5e means a very different thing than broken did in 3e. Because it can bend, it is less apt to break.

3e is a stained-glass window depicting a castle, 5e is a pile of sand you can wet and build a sand-castle from.
Glass & sand, both the same thing (SiO4), but 'breaking' one is more of a problem than the other.

 

[Fanaelialae]

3e is a stained-glass window depicting a castle, 5e is a pile of sand you can wet and build a sand-castle from.
Glass & sand, both the same thing (SiO4), but 'breaking' one is more of a problem than the other.

IMO the sand castle comes built, as 5e (like any edition of D&D) is possessed of a distinctive shape (as opposed to something like GURPS which is really like a pile of sand). It's a rather good metaphor though, kudos.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's a moot point though, because there is no Dex item. The only "stat 19" items are Strength, Constitution, and Intelligence.

Context IDK if this poster actually plays 5E. He was one of the 4E forever type over on the WotC boards.

 

[Zardnaar]

The idea that we need a definitive list of prices for castles, hirelings, mercenary company upkeep, buying an inn or a ship... all the things a rich character could do - well, it might be a useful list, but it wouldn't reflect any particular worlds reality....
If you genuinely cannot put stuff in a campaign for adventurers to spend their gold on once they are fully equipped...

Then you have players who aren't interested in gold outside of what it can buy for their characters. They're out there, it's not an invalid play style.

The key to running for that style is to keep potential rewards on a scale that's relevant throughout the campaign. You can run a campaign about a crew of mercenary adventurers who are perpetually broke, for instance.

You've been mak'n stuff up. Which, if there's a TrueWay2Play 5e, is it.

So you're openly threadjacking. ;P

Seriously, though, the game doesn't support paint-by-numbers DMing. It just doesn't.

What you'd need to get a robust utlity-pricing mechanism is robustly-designed items, and 5e items designs are not that restrained. You'd still need some variation on 'rarity' (as in some items can't be made/bought) or you'd need to scrap existing items and start over.

Since the game doesn't assume items, there's no valid assumption of starting with items, just start at any level with standard gold, y'should be fine.

What you need for an uptime gold sink is something the players care about. If that's progressing their characters within a wealth/level magic-items-expected framework - and with 3.x/PF going on two decades of history, we can only assume alot of D&Ders have acclimated to that expectation - 5e should provide a way to do it. That way can't include items designed in the 5e style, it'd need it's own book of items designed with wealth/level scaling in mind - and, probably, variant encounter guidelines and exp to go with it.

I suppose, for that, you could use 5e items, as well. Anything goes.

It would absolutely mean that, it'd be an inevitable consequence - if not the whole point - of bringing back a 3e-style magic item economy. "Rarity" isn't a charade, because it doesn't pretend to be a utility-based pricing formula. It's a pricing formula for games in which gold doesn't matter, and magic items make you just better (which is an understated, but factual, way of saying 'break the game').

5e's meant to be for fans of all past editions. That should (and does) include fans of the classic game who expect magic items to be powerful/exciting/interesting potentially character-defining/game-breaking and entirely under the DM's control. That should (and arguably doesn't) include fans of 3.x/PF who want wealth/level make/buy that lets everyone customize their magic item selection and lets casters burn exp for gold to do so, and thus provides lavish rewards for system mastery. And, yes, that even should (and doesn't) include fans of 4e who want wealth/level & make/buy of items that assumed into balanced scaling and even feasibly opt-out without disrupting that progression.

This is one of the areas where 5e has fallen short. You can't just slap on a pricing system to 5e's classically-designed items and get a 3.x/PF, let alone a 4e, functionality from them. You might get a nice call-back to an old Monty Haul campaign trying that.[/QUOTE]


I think only the most hard core of 3E fans think that the pricing things for 3E are actually a key feature of the game. Most 3E players (and PF players come to think of it) I have encountered are not the best at min/maxing which seems mostly confined to online discussion and perhaps OP.

IDK if the 4E players think that is a key feature of 4E either and there is not enough of them in any event (2% or so online tables).

If I had the choice of a reworked 4E or 3.x type game dumping the magic item Christmas tree and treadmill effect would actually improve both systems as the most appealing parts of those systems are not the way they deal with magic items and both of them could use AD&D magic items(under DM control) IMHO and probably improve the game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

there is not enough of them in any event (2% or so online tables)....
Most 3E players (and PF players come to think of it) I have encountered are...
I think only the most hard core of 3E fans think that...

When you're tempted to make up statistics to prove that you're right because the thing you don't like is relatively unpopular, remember that D&D is amazingly unpopular, that it doesn't matter because popularity or the lack thereof proves nothing.
And then don't bother.

[IDK if ... ]the pricing things for 3E are actually a key feature of the game.

It's more a matter of having solid prices and make/buy at all, than the specific prices. It's player-'entitlement' - you pays your gps and you gets your item.

[IDK if ... ]that is a key feature of 4E either

Outside of the treadmill, which could be kept going w/o magic items by flipping on inherent bonuses, magic items were relatively minor in 4e, they could add color, or, typically pre-some-erratta, drizzle a little gasoline on the fire of some build. The rapidly-ballooning pricing was, likewise, mainly about their role in the treadmill, not too important outside that.

5e, like the classic game, leaves items the purview of the DM - so it's magic item designs needn't consider balance or scaling, and putting them on a wealth/level schedule with make/buy pricing would be as or more problematic than it was in 3e...