Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="keterys" data-source="post: 4970064" data-attributes="member: 43019">Of negligible cost.Well, costing time only <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />It only nets you more gold if it saves you gold in some other way, such as by not failing an encounter, or not dying. And either way, the whetstones still cost more, require a minor action, stack with the bracers, etc.More items? I've never had a 14 round encounter, and am a lot more used to 5, so in your case it would in fact be more valuable. Of course, if you spend 2000 gold and 20 minor actions on whetstones, you might have had another option. But it's really quite immaterial if the triggering condition is 'The DM gave us an item' since then you're comparing a single whetstone to the sell/disenchant value of the item (20% of a the value of a level 2) _obtained 6 levels later_... especially since you can use the item until you get something better, and then still sell it.Of course it doesn't break the game.But nor would the game be broken if I decided that all barbarians deal +Level damage once per round and all fighters get +2*Level HP.Made more unhealthy? Sure. That's a totally unnecessary change that gravitates play towards barbarians and fighters, unbalances encounters by a step (and every step adds up), etc. In this particular case, the main thing it does is devalues all other magic items. To the point where you're openly scoffing at all other reasonable options because they don't measure up.Very, very few things 'break' the game. But lots of stuff injure it. Yep, it degrades choice. Worse, it does so in a way that does not make the game more inherently interesting.Of course there is. Because the others ones all follow the standards of balance decided upon for the game.If someone creates a class that is identical to the rogue in every single possible way, except it also deals an additional +1d8 per tier on all attacks, does it break the game?Does that mean the rogue class is crap, and this new class is correct?Unfortunately, there are clear logical holes in your statement. If all of the items in the game were balanced equivalent with the IAoP then there'd be no reason for people to object to them.1) Don't compare to primary slot items - they're intended to just be better. Compare a cloak of resistance to an ironskin belt, for instance.2) Gauntlets of Blood are nowhere near as good as iron armbands of power. _And_ are in the previously mentioned upper 2% of items. As are cloaks of distortion and bloodclaw, of course.Which means that the balance point for armslot items is 'crap', and you have proven the armbands are overpowered for their slot and should not be allowed. Congratulations.For most builds, the armbands of power (level 6) are more powerful than gauntlets of destruction (level 18). Are the gauntlets also crap?It may not have been clear, but the objection isn't even with giving out a +2 bonus to damage necessarily. Several people against the armbands have said they'd be fine _giving that out for free instead_.</blockquote>

Verification