Community

Oct 9, 2012 -- 2:27PM, Monsieur_Moustache wrote:

It would be far more simple to not apply any arbitrary ability to attack modifiers.

Then we wouldn't care of a Str 56 Belt of the Adrenalized Cosmic Squirrel.

That kind of misses the point. These items existed in D&D longer than most people who play have been alive.  Making them more like they used to be isn't so much the problem as the bonuses that are tied to them, although in AD&D the difference between to hit and damage was pretty small at these levels. 

The game has survived +12 damage bonuses before and even encouraged them in at least one iteration so the problem seems to be one where someone doesn't like it because it makes soeone else better than they aught to be.

"How dare the woosy wizzard be as strong as the bitchin' barbarian."

I mean really people, and the worst of it is if the DM plays by the book no one will ever have a girdle of cloud giant strength anyway. 

Why? Just to be able to give out the item even though you feel the original is too powerful?

The easy solution is then to not give the players the item. (If you feel that it is inappropriate, just leave it in the list)

The next best solution is to call that hard-balanced once-per-day version "Lesser Belt of Giant Strenght" or something. Then you can give that out without ruining the real item.

There is no problem whatsoever with having any powerful items in the list.
There might be a problem if a character gets a powerful item by mistake, but really..  it's not the end of the world.

If this was in the list, would that have to be nerfed aswell?

Rod of the Emperor
Once per round as a free action you may use the rod to force obediance by every creature you choose within 50ft. Creatures affected must make a Wis-save versus 12 + your Cha mod, or be charmed until next sundown or sunrise.

or maybe this?

Ring of Invincibility
The wearer can not be hurt by weapons or spells.

No.. because they hurt noone in the list.
Use the items in the list if they add to your campaign, otherwise dont.

Oct 9, 2012 -- 2:20PM, DemoMonkey wrote:

The Ogre/Giant Strength items would still be awesome, without being problematic, if they read something like this:

This item needs to be attuned.

This item gives you X Strength for the purpose of calculating carrying capacity.

Once per day, you may treat your Strength score as being equal to X for a single attack, Strength check, or Strength based skill check.


Now it could be once or twice per day, or once for 3 rounds or whatever. That's what playtesting is for. But by making it a limited use (but not expendable)  item it eliminates the problem of "negating" dearly paid for starting stats.

Plus it presents the interesting choice, what do you want to wear in that slot, an item that has a modest but consistent benefit, or an item that is kickass but only occassionally?


(As an aside: anyone have any speculation why they went out of their way to make all of the Giant Strength items grant odd numbered strength scores?)

This. This is an example of good item design. It makes you as strong as a Hill Giant (or something else similar) without breaking attribute balance over its knee like a twig. The once per day ability is just gravy, and honestly I'd almost rather have Hill Giant strength with a bonus I can use 5 times per day than Storm Giant strength I could only activate once per day. That idea of opportunity cost makes the item even better.


Orzel, I agree that guidelines of no, low, medium, and high magic settings would be incredibly useful. You could take the concept I proposed, of having specific magic item chance by level (1-2, 3-4, 5-6 etc) and have different progressions for the different settings. A Low magic setting might never see an item higher than Rare, maybe a single Very Rare that would be the goal of an entire story arc. Medium would use something like what I've presented. High magic might have Common items showing up very frequently, and Legendary/Artifact items be present even at levels as low at 9 or 10.


Tlanti, I think the main issue is more "I put a 17 in Strength, that cost most of my attribute points, so why does the Wizard who put a 9 into Strength now have a 19? That's not fair!". And while some might call that whining, I think it's fairly justified. The Wizard in the party is TOTALLY allowed to put a 17 into Strength if he wants to, but he won't because he's going to put everything he's got into Intelligence and leave just enough in other stats so he's a functioning, maybe above average person without any glaring flaws.

If there was an item that gave Illithid Intelligence (21), then I think people would complain that it benefits Grognak the Barbarian too much when the poor Wizard had to spend so many points in Int.


Sesdun, the point of designing magic items to hand out is so that they're balanced. You can argue for days that it's up to the DM's decision, and that the DM can choose to not allow any items that are too unbalancing, but it doesn't matter, because that's bad design. Good design is making sure that all items within the same Rarity class are roughly equivalent in power and scope. If I made a +10 Longsword a Common item, that's poor design, because it isn't keeping with what Common items are and should do. Sure, the DM would probably ban it from the game, but I can prevent those kinds of ruling from needing to be done by making GOOD rules BEFORE the DM gets his hands on them.

I think that the Belts of X Strength are very, very powerful items because they give a large stat bonus, and are unbalanced with other items of their rarity. I think even a 21 Strength belt is a Legendary item. I personally think stat items should be in the +1/+2/+3 range at best (at rare/very rare/legendary), and that they should require attunement to use properly.


I think the magic items are interesting, and there's a lot of effort put into the system. I get the feeling that some of the items are iconic weapons, armor, or rings that the developers got when they played and wanted to make sure were in 5th Edition, and that's encouraging. It shows they're really caring about the quality of the experiences players will have when they play this edition.

Some of the magic items are cool, but these things are way too good. I'd gank a party member for them in a heartbeat  (if playing an evil character). 

So if the problem is a non melee type getting their hands on something like this maybe they should put class restrictions on them like they did in AD&D. If the issue is a magic user getting a pair of gauntlets then make it so the guy can't use them. It makes sense since they have spells and items only they can use.

All I can say about people getting bent over the barbarian getting an item that boosts intelligence because the player had to spend points to get his score that high is that they need to get over it. That is the most childish thing I ever heard, I mean think about it.

Is this where the average D&D player is emotionally? Actually feeling resentment and jealousy over some numbers on a piece of paper or pixels on a monitor? Are peopel really that self centered and selfish as to begrudge others of having something better than them?