Gloves of Dexterity and Amulet of Health

anyone know why they haven't been added to the packet yet?  maybe they'll be added in the next update.

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

Such items need to be be considered very carefully because they modify the power of a bounded-accuracy game in very large ways, furthermore, they tend to not be designed in such a way that is "fun" to use, but are seen as the very "baseline" to have – so as, if you go for gloves of knife hiding or amulet of sending, while they might be more flavourful and "fun" for the character to acquire, your character is considered "behind" because you're not taking something that will empower you and help you keep up with powerful enemies – namely, items like gloves of dexterity or amulet of health.

Thus, items like these need to be included with very careful consideration by the developers.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

as it is a barbarian or fighter is better off using strength as a dump stat because of how belts of giants strength work, combined with the fact that no equvilant items exist for any of the other stats they need.

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

as it is a barbarian or fighter is better off using strength as a dump stat because of how belts of giants strength work, combined with the fact that no equvilant items exist for any of the other stats they need.


A strength based fighter might use strength as a dump stat but if they never get a belt, they might regret it.  You can't just go buy a belt at the local magic store.
anyone know why they haven't been added to the packet yet?  maybe they'll be added in the next update.


I predict they aren't in the next update.  Anyone wanna bet?
as it is a barbarian or fighter is better off using strength as a dump stat because of how belts of giants strength work, combined with the fact that no equvilant items exist for any of the other stats they need.


A strength based fighter might use strength as a dump stat but if they never get a belt, they might regret it.  You can't just go buy a belt at the local magic store.

so then they use a finesse weapon until they get a Belt of Giant's Strength 

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

Marandahir's right and the magic items guidelines should include a section that says very much what he's said. However, we should remember that magic items do not figure into the core balance and it's up to the DM to decide what's included and what is not, which means that the designers have no real need to do anything at all to the magic items but provide ideas and then let us play.


Still, some guidelines about how magic items inevitably change the dynamic of the mechanics would be incredibly valuable for player and DM alike.

I think it would be fine if Gloves of Dexterity provided a bonus to dexterity based skills involving hands and initiative involving thrown weapons but I think that the global effect of increasing dexterity on AC, attack, and damage rolls could be unbalancing.  The items don't need complete parity to emulate the magical effect that they are supposed to have.

Similarly the Amulet of Health could increase Endurance checks and healing during exrtended rests without involving a global increase in Con.

Having said that, if these items granted +1 to Dex and Con, I think the game can swallow that.
as it is a barbarian or fighter is better off using strength as a dump stat because of how belts of giants strength work, combined with the fact that no equvilant items exist for any of the other stats they need.


I'll agree that any str based char that dumped str for the sole purpose of waiting for a belt is gonna have to show me they really want it and not expect anything.
My two copper.
as it is a barbarian or fighter is better off using strength as a dump stat because of how belts of giants strength work, combined with the fact that no equvilant items exist for any of the other stats they need.


A strength based fighter might use strength as a dump stat but if they never get a belt, they might regret it.  You can't just go buy a belt at the local magic store.

so then they use a finesse weapon until they get a Belt of Giant's Strength 



In general?  Only a fool would build their character either way on the assumption that they're going to get a specific magic item....
(I'm the DM.  I decide what items exist/enter the game.)
But in games where such a "builds" are practical?  Then their playing with a very poor DM.

As a DM?  When I see players build characters with such glaring "flaws"?  I presume that the player intends to play such a disadvantage.   And I make sure to let them.  
So it'll be a very long time, likely never, before they just find item x.  And no matter how much loot they have, they'll NEVER be able to just "buy one" or even craft it themselves.  No, they'll have to go to actual efforts in game like tracking down rumors of the items last known location & retrieving it or securing very hard to obtain componatnts & crafting assistance, etc.  Hmm, sounds like seeds for all kinds of adventures..... 


Marandahir's right and the magic items guidelines should include a section that says very much what he's said. However, we should remember that magic items do not figure into the core balance and it's up to the DM to decide what's included and what is not, which means that the designers have no real need to do anything at all to the magic items but provide ideas and then let us play.



     This is just asking for disaster.  The DM knows far less than the designer about how to balance and allow magic items.  He is also busy with running the game.  Failing to figure magic into the core balance is derelection of duty.
No, no disaster... the first game since 3.x which does it right!

Characters should not be built around the expectation of getting magic items. 4e wishlists was a natural consequence to 3.x magic item creation and expected wealth. (look at the npcs in the dmg... without magic items they were useless...)
No, no disaster... the first game since 3.x which does it right!

Characters should not be built around the expectation of getting magic items. 4e wishlists was a natural consequence to 3.x magic item creation and expected wealth. (look at the npcs in the dmg... without magic items they were useless...)

hear hear

I would reserve librams or the wish spell for attribute increases. Other items should grant an aspect of the attribute it affects with a power that emulates a skil die, spell, or simlar ability. Like gloves of dexterity granting the power of never being able to drop something. I would not look for a one to one correspondance for magic found in previous editions, but if it is no present when the game is released then you are always free to add it.
No, no disaster... the first game since 3.x which does it right!

Characters should not be built around the expectation of getting magic items. 4e wishlists was a natural consequence to 3.x magic item creation and expected wealth. (look at the npcs in the dmg... without magic items they were useless...)


     The character can be built on the expectation of magic, or the expection there will be no magic, either way.  I would argue that the desire for magic items is a big pull for the game, and not letting the player have a +2 sword will result in less players.  But we can have a game without magic.            
     The problem here is leaving the choice up to the DM without major guidance.  The DM can run a game without magic, or one where the player gets 10 magic items a level.  But when he is told to just select whatever, we face serious problems of balance and DM skill.  It becomes very easy to have a game where the players are +1 vs +10 monsters, or +10 vs +1 monsters. 
     When the developer gives guidance for encounters, he assumes a level of magic.  It doesn't really matter what level of itself.  He still has to assume a level of magic.  So when the DM is not also given guidance on the amount of magic, the developer's guidance becomes worthless.
  5e will need a magic list and guidance on how much magic a player gets, and when.   
No, no disaster... the first game since 3.x which does it right!

Characters should not be built around the expectation of getting magic items. 4e wishlists was a natural consequence to 3.x magic item creation and expected wealth. (look at the npcs in the dmg... without magic items they were useless...)


     The character can be built on the expectation of magic, or the expection there will be no magic, either way.  I would argue that the desire for magic items is a big pull for the game, and not letting the player have a +2 sword will result in less players.  But we can have a game without magic.            
     The problem here is leaving the choice up to the DM without major guidance.  The DM can run a game without magic, or one where the player gets 10 magic items a level.  But when he is told to just select whatever, we face serious problems of balance and DM skill.  It becomes very easy to have a game where the players are +1 vs +10 monsters, or +10 vs +1 monsters. 
     When the developer gives guidance for encounters, he assumes a level of magic.  It doesn't really matter what level of itself.  He still has to assume a level of magic.  So when the DM is not also given guidance on the amount of magic, the developer's guidance becomes worthless.
  5e will need a magic list and guidance on how much magic a player gets, and when.   



so you wont trust your dm to decide what is balanced in his campaign as most dms know ahead of time what items are in the content he is running. but you want a book to spell it out in no uncertain terms?


I would rather have magic items outside the rules then forced in like 4th.( its one of the problems I actually had with 4th). I never let my players just pick what magic items they got, to me it woulda taken something away from the game.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

          
     The problem here is leaving the choice up to the DM without major guidance.  The DM can run a game without magic, or one where the player gets 10 magic items a level.  But when he is told to just select whatever, we face serious problems of balance and DM skill.  It becomes very easy to have a game where the players are +1 vs +10 monsters, or +10 vs +1 monsters. 
     When the developer gives guidance for encounters, he assumes a level of magic.  It doesn't really matter what level of itself.  He still has to assume a level of magic.  So when the DM is not also given guidance on the amount of magic, the developer's guidance becomes worthless.
  5e will need a magic list and guidance on how much magic a player gets, and when.   

I think you're assuming there will be no guidance. I don't know what would possibly lead you to that conclusion, since every D&D book that's ever been intended for DMs has always included guidance for magic and its use in that bit of material, or more general things to consider in books like the DMG.

Why on earth would they not do it this time around?

I can only speak for 4E, since that magic system is the most recent in my mind, but I would prefer they build the expection of magic into the system; to a point. They need to address magic items up to a +3 accuracy bonus as a reasonable assumption in the game. That way they can adjust monster AC and other abilities to reflect it. And like 4E they can include inherent bonus rules to replace that assumption for campaign the don't use a heavy dose of magic items. The reason I state this is I don't want to have to modify every monster should I decide to include magic. And it is rare for magic items not to be included in D&D, but I agree it does not have to get to the point of expecting +5 bonuses to accuracy.

In theory, they could do the opposite by assuming magic will not be included, then include a formula to increase monsters AC and other abiltiies should magic be included. But I see that as more work for the DM. I want 5E to focus on making creating adventures and encounters as easy as possible for the DM.
I think having +5 items in a game with BA is a mistake in itself. Lets give a bigger bonus than what you get for 20 levels, no thanx.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

According to my playtest, items that let you go over 20 are fine as long as they are rare enough that player cannot expect to get them.

In past editions, the game expects you get certain items for balance to work. In D&D Next, the game expects nothing. Players cannot assume they'll get Ability boost items not get magical versions of their weapon of choice. My cousin's elf fighter is balanced by the fact they I have not rolled a magical finesse weapon not Strength gloves/belt for him.

It is sorta like MTG when nothing in the booster pack fits your deck of choice. This information is currently missing in the DM Guidelines but it is only a playtest.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

It is super easy to adjust, as long as the baseline is clearly spelled out:

In 3.x the baseline was clear: assumed wealth per level

In 4e the baseline was clear: +x big three items at level y

In 5e it will be clear: no magic as default, no wealth assumed


Problems:

in 3.x: attack/spell DCs and Armor/saving throws were so unbalanced, that the removal of magic didn´t result in an equal reduction of offense and defense

in 4e, it actually worked BETTER without magic items, you just had to adjust and let PC´s fight lower level monsters... problem was, that players felt very weak, because monsters increased their power a lot faster...

in 5e, there could be the problem, that with such a flat progression, even for fighters, a magic weapon could feel like the only way to really improve in hitting the enemies... and even a +1 weapon increases the fighting capability like 3 or 4 additional levels of fighter...

Conclusion:

4e and 5e only need a little guideline how to add/remove magic items by adding or substracting a certain percentage of xp per encounter. And maybe using monsers of y levels higher/lower as the baseline.

With 5e guidelines for easy/normal/tough encounters, you could as well rate the difficulty 1-10 and have normal without magic weapons  3-4, easy 1-2, difficult 5-6 and an for every 5 +1 magic weapons/armor, you shift difficulty by 1.

In the end it may not be that simple, but such a formula as a guideline would be enough to help new DMs play with new players...

experienced DMs and experienced Players will soon recognize how to make encounters easier and make this guideline obsolete... but they will be able to use their experience to guess how an encounter will turn out 90% of the time.

I DMed 3e for about 8 years and still used CR to great effect. With experienced groups and with unexperienced groups. With few magic items and with a lot of them. With power gamers and with "noobs"...
3e worked well enough... 5e will work too. Most probably a lot better, as you only need to adjust into one direction!
It is super easy to adjust, as long as the baseline is clearly spelled out:

Problems:

in 5e, there could be the problem, that with such a flat progression, even for fighters, a magic weapon could feel like the only way to really improve in hitting the enemies... and even a +1 weapon increases the fighting capability like 3 or 4 additional levels of fighter...

Conclusion:

4e and 5e only need a little guideline how to add/remove magic items by adding or substracting a certain percentage of xp per encounter. And maybe using monsers of y levels higher/lower as the baseline.

With 5e guidelines for easy/normal/tough encounters, you could as well rate the difficulty 1-10 and have normal without magic weapons  3-4, easy 1-2, difficult 5-6 and an for every 5 +1 magic weapons/armor, you shift difficulty by 1.



The above pretty much spells it out, but I want the emphasis to be whatever is easier for the DM to implement without having to adjust every monster. Since D&D without magic is rare, they should design BA to include some assumptions. Developing a game with no assumptions, especially the use of magic equates to more work for the DM. 5E should be somewhere in the middle between no magic, and very powerful magic, e.g. +5 accuracy bonuses on magic items.  

Designing the game as magic item independent then giving guidelines for the different magic levels would be the easiest route. all they would have to do is explain the campaign changes of various magic item frequencies and power level.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

You can design the game either way, in reference to assuming magic or not. However, I find the approach of assuming magic easier for the DM, because they can use monsters out of the box. If the DM decides he does not want to include magic, then he or she could use something similar to inherent bonuses. The benefit is the DM only has to modify the players at the table to match the assumption. If you take the other route and assume no magic, then you can still use the monsters out of the box, but if magic bonuses start to make the game to easy then the DM must modify every monster you throw in the game. And just dealing from a numbers perspective it is easier for me as a DM to modify how 6 players at the table affect the game, versus 300 plus monsters, NPCs, etc. I choose making the life of a DM as easy as possible. Without a DM, you do not have a game.
Sign In to post comments