Wishes and tomes Sean. They increase your stats by an even or odd number depending of the number of spell cast or the bonus of the tome, so we have a "common" magic item that give odd stat increases.
Not the same thing; we're talking about removable, non-permanent items like belts and headbands.
This is a good question, one I'd like to hear a game developer weigh in on. Was this void considered during the creation of Pathfinder?
No, because we understand why it's that way in 3E.
Firstly there is the fact Sean K. Reynolds is simply wrong, since I actually posted a WotC endorsed adventure that you download from their site with an item that grants a +1 enhancement bonus to Strength.
Fair enough (I'll admit my ignorance that I haven't read every single PDF Wizards has produced).
But I'll point out that a free PDF--one which doesn't have a developer* credited for it----isn't in the same category as a printed core rulebook.
A +1 belt, headband, or gauntlet doesn't appear in the 3E core rulebooks, the 3.5 core rulebooks, the PF core rulebooks, or (as far as I know) the 4E core rulebooks. And this was a deliberate decision, not something the designers forgot to include in the game.
* And no, Mark Jindra the web developer doesn't count. It's not his job to evaluate submissions for compliance with the game rules.
Perhaps you should instead look at it as, "why, in the 12 year lifespan of 3rd edition D&D + Pathfinder, has there never been an official product from Wizards or Paizo that has an odd-plus ability score boosting item? If the intent was that such a thing is allowed, why is that unexplored game niche still left alone by the game designers?"
Okay, that's nice. I'd still like my question answered. Why, if it's such a big balance issue have you not have included a 6 word statement to the magic item creation. "No odd numbered temporary magic items."
You have pointed out 3rd edition and 3.5 but that was wotc, pathinder is YOUR game. Back to my original question for the third time, please address it this time around if you would.
Is it against the rules (published not implied) that I have an odd numbered magic item.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, that's nice. I'd still like my question answered. Why, if it's such a big balance issue have you not have included a 6 word statement to the magic item creation. "No odd numbered temporary magic items."
There's lots of stuff we don't say in the magic item creation section, including "you can't create at an-will true strike item for 2,000 gp.
Is it against the rules (published not implied) that I cannot have an odd numbered magic item.
It's not explicitly forbidden by the rules, but that doesn't mean you should allow it. The game also doesn't say that dead characters can't take actions...
Irontruth: You and Ashiel can try to play symantics all you want but it will get you nowhere. Sean said "official product" and I stand by my point that the product you are refering to was not officially produced by WotC. That, I think, is the whole point behind him saying "official product". Whether they "paid the author for his work", "published and distrubuted" or "owns the adventure" or not does not matter. It was not made by WotC. They simply own the rights to it. It was created by a freelance artist for use by WotC.
I think everyone here would agree that if the developers at Paizo started using corner cases presented in non-official Paizo products that they simply "endorse", "publish and distribute" or "paid the author for his work" to justify rules that such a thing wouldn't fly. Why then would anyone possibly think that they are using these to prove why rules shouldn't exist? The fact is that Sean used an exclusitory statement in what he said and I don't think that was an accident. He purposefully excluded such works as they aren't an "official product from WotC or Paizo".
Further, I think you guys all need to back off our Devs when they are making a statement on developer intent. No one really has any grounds to argue what their intent was. No one is going to know their intent more than them. Arguing intent with a developer is a practice in futility.
And again, note that Sean never said that it isn't RAW.
WotC is the official publisher of D&D. WotC published it. Therefore, it is an official published product front WotC.
If you want to argue that it is an extremely limited in scope, or not intended to be a rules supplement, I would agree with you, but right know you are trying to do mental backflips justifying your position, which ignores the D&D logo, the WotC logo, and copyright language that is very standard for most publishers for the past 100 years (minus the OGL bit).
I've also pointed out that there are already dozens, if not over 100, magic items that vary in performance. Asked upon the user.
The only logical argument to disallow something like this is balance. I'm not necessarily opposed to that argument, but as someone else pointed out, in a point buy game, odd numbers cost valuable build points.
I don't think this is a game breaking item, especially if you require someone in the party to take an item creation feat to make them. Disallowing them isn't a huge deal either, since most people I know are going to plan their primary stat out for the characters career anyways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Irontruth, you know what... I'm just going to continue to let you argue with the developers on your holy semantics quest. You are wrong here, it is not an official WotC product. The fact that they published it dos not make it so as much as you want it to be. Even so, what point would that prove even if it were? You have developer intent right in front of you. For both systems, I might add.
Look, you are all being outright told that it was not an accidental ommision in the rules. It wasn't put there and you can all feel free to run the game however you want. But it was purposefully not included. By the developers. Got that? Not an accidental ommision. Purposefully not included.
But by all means... continue to argue with the devs. I'm sure you got something to prove to the board goers by doing so.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the nine. I'm surprised the devs keep posting on the forums. Its like any answer they give you hack and slash to death. Why even ask a question if your going to attack the answer giver?
Irontruth, you know what... I'm just going to continue to let you argue with the developers on your holy semantics quest. You are wrong here, it is not an official WotC product. The fact that they published it dos not make it so as much as you want it to be. Even so, what point would that prove even if it were? You have developer intent right in front of you. For both systems, I might add.
Look, you are all being outright told that it was not an accidental ommision in the rules. It wasn't put there and you can all feel free to run the game however you want. But it was purposefully not included. By the developers. Got that? Not an accidental ommision. Purposefully not included.
But by all means... continue to argue with the devs. I'm sure you got something to prove to the board goers by doing so.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the sentiment of your statement. But you're extremely silly if you want to argue that WotC did not publish an adventure with a +1 Strength item. Their legal documentation obtained from their own website says you're wrong.
I would agree that the adventure in question is largely irrelevant. But I cannot agree that there are zero documents published by WotC (the owners of the D&D product name) with an odd number stat boost item.
I agree, the document should not be considered a rules developer article about magic items. But it's still published by the official publisher of D&D material, and to pretend its not is laughable. The statement that "no WotC or Paizo product has ever been published with an odd number stat boost" is a clearly false statement and to use that as an argument for the rules is a fallacy.
I personally think there is merit for and against odd number stat boost, but those have to do with game balance. I do not think that a plea to authority has anything to do with a rational and logical evaluation of the rules. An idea must stand on its own merits, not logical fallacies.
SKR even posted a mea culpa that he was unaware of this obscure adventure. I'm not sure why you're trying to deny its existence. Please feel free to drop the existence of this adventure, I concur on its overall irrelevance, so there's isn't much to talk about, other than the fact than it does exist and was published by WotC. You can disagree if you like, but WotC/Hasbro lawyers are going to win the argument if you were to take them to court. The adventure is largely irrelevant, other than to prove the concept of odd numbers exists and has, at some level, been approved of. Approved of enough to officially attach the D&D name to it.
I'm "silly" now? Cause when you can't win an arguement of semantics why not resort to personal attacks, eh?
I'm also surprised the devs keep posting here. I'm surprised that since the personal attacks have started against posters that they haven't transitioned to the devs yet. We all know what happened last time that that transpired. Are we just shooting for a repeat at this point? I mean... why be respectful when we can get threads locked and alienate our devs, right?
Tell ya what, Irontruth (oh how ironic the name is...) if your arguements revolve around game balance issues then why not stick to that? Telling a dev he is a liar when he has talked about nothing other than developer intent is not only an excersize in futility it just doesn't look good for you.
Oh, and I never once denied the existance of the adventure. I simply said that it was not PRODUCED by WotC. ...which is true. But by all means, I'm sure you will keep arguing your obscure point...
I simply said that it was not PRODUCED by WotC. ...which is true. But by all means, I'm sure you will keep arguing your obscure point...
Wizards of the Coast disagrees with you.
I agree with you, the adventure is obscure. But the adventure is hosted on the Wizards website and contains a Wizards copyright. I agree, none of the original, or major rules developers was involved with that product... but WotC still published it. Therefore the statement "WotC published a product that included an item with an odd number bonus to attributes" is true.
I think this point is largely irrelevant, except to disprove the statement earlier that nothing has ever been published with an odd number attribute boost.
If you want to talk about game balance, I'm willing. But you can't claim WotC didn't publish that adventure without being silly. Because they did and they even provide it on their own website.
I don't think the concept of game balance is as cut and dry as opponents to odd attribute bonuses make it out to be, though I do think their position is valid.
Firstly there is the fact Sean K. Reynolds is simply wrong, since I actually posted a WotC endorsed adventure that you download from their site with an item that grants a +1 enhancement bonus to Strength.Fair enough (I'll admit my ignorance that I haven't read every single PDF Wizards has produced).
It's cool. Just an example of why sweeping statements are kind of dangerous. They are almost always wrong. It's a habit I've had troubles with in the past myself.
But I'll point out that a free PDF--one which doesn't have a developer* credited for it----isn't in the same category as a printed core rulebook.
But it is an official product. And it is edited by Penny Williams, who is an official writer and contributor for WotC and has had material appear in the Complete Arcane and other sources (also the wife of Skip Williams, last I checked). One might think that given Paizo's emphasis on pdf products both free and otherwise, that suggesting that something that wasn't a printed hardback was somehow less official is a bit strange; don't you think Sean? Would you say that all the free to download Player's Guides from Paizo are not official product? Would you suggest that the feats and charcter options therein are somehow not valid or supported by Paizo?
A +1 belt, headband, or gauntlet doesn't appear in the 3E core rulebooks, the 3.5 core rulebooks, the PF core rulebooks, or (as far as I know) the 4E core rulebooks. And this was a deliberate decision, not something the designers forgot to include in the game.
* And no, Mark Jindra the web developer doesn't count. It's not his job to evaluate submissions for compliance with the game rules.
It'd be nice if you could explain that legitimate decision; because I've been active with this game on a level that borders on obsessive since it debuted; and I've never once seen a need or point to such a decision. In fact, evaluating the effects of such items has only ever led me to conclude that it must have been a space thing, or because they wanted to keep the items simple (+2 will raise the effective bonus of any score, even though ability scores are measured in 1s); leaving the odd ability score items as options (something you might have commissioned by an NPC or crafted yourself or dropped into the game by the GM).
Also, concerning Mr. Owens...
Owen K.C. Stephens isn't just some random guy. He worked as an employee of Wizards for over a year, and has had a direct hand in many D20-based products that Wizards put out. In fact, the following is taken from the Wizards of the Coast website.
Hello all, and welcome to the latest installment of Bullet Points. I'm Owen K.C. Stephens, the d20 triggerman and writer of a lot of Star Wars Roleplaying Game, Dungeons & Dragons, and d20 Modern material (including d20 Cyberscape, Dragon Magic, and a chunk of the upcoming Star Wars Saga Edition Roleplaying Game). Every two weeks (or as close to that as we can manage), I'll answer questions about rules from the d20 Modern line of games and giving advice about more difficult rules issues.
In this installment we look at three broad, tricky questions involving skills. In most cases, the questions seem to come from gamers who feel the rules as written don't jibe with reality. This is a common perception with any game, and it deserves a brief discussion in its own right.
No game can perfectly match how reality works, and in most cases we wouldn't want it to. Reality is a hash mistress, and she tends to crush heroes. That's why there aren't really people swinging through the steel mountains of Manhattan looking for evil to vanquish. Also, game rules need to produce a good game at least as much as they need to model reality. The real question is not "does this rule match how things actually work perfectly?" It's "does this rule work well enough for us to have fun?"
If everyone in a gaming group doesn't like how a rule compares to reality, the solution is easy -- change it (the rule, not reality). The problem comes when one or more people don't like it and others do. That's what the GM is for. The GM should listen to player opinions but never forget that he has final say. After a brief discussion and quick resolution, it's time to move on. Dissenters can continue the discussion (politely!) after the game, but don't bog down play. Even if the game's 'reality" doesn't match your view of the world, you should be able to ignore missteps and move on for the sake of the adventure. Most of us have seen a movie where unbelievable or unrealistic things happened, but we enjoyed the movie anyway. Most games are like that at the best of times. Shrug off the minor annoyances, and focus on having fun. It is, after all, just a game.
If you buy up your Intelligence score, does that increase the skill points you get per level for previous levels? My group is all convinced it doesn't, but none of us can find a rule that states so.
Likely, you are suffering from an effect I call "system confusion." This results from minor differences between various d20 System games. In the current edition of D&D, on page 10 of the Player's Handbook where it discusses the effect on Mialee's skill points when she buys up her Intelligence score, it specifically states, "She does not retroactively get additional points for her previous levels."
Looking under the same "Changing Ability Scores" heading in the d20 Modern Roleplaying Game, we don't find anything like that sentence. The rule may be buried somewhere else (as soon as I say it's not included anywhere in d20 Modern, some sharp-eyed reader is sure to find the one place I didn't look), but on first blush it doesn't look as if it's a part of the d20 Modern game. Unless I missed a rule, it appears that Intelligence changes to skill points/level are retroactive.
The more important issue is, what makes more sense to your group and in your games? The question of current Intelligence score changes affecting the skill points of previous levels can get tricky fast. For example, if you rule it does not impact the skill points of previous levels, whenever you make a high-level character from scratch, you must decide at what level any Intelligence increase came so you can figure skill points for each level with the Int modifier the character had at that level. Believe me, that's a huge pain.
On the other hand, if you allow past levels' skill points to be altered by changes to Intelligence, what happen if your Int is drained for some reason? Do you lose all previous skill ranks bought with bonus skill points from past levels? How fast does that happen? Does a curse that places you at -4 Intelligence for a day mean you're down 2 skill points per level for 24 hours, forcing you to do a quick rewrite of your character? If you pick up an alien helmet that gives you +2 Int when worn, are you more skilled only when wearing it (requiring two sets of skill totals)?
In my experience, the easiest solution is to say that permanent changes to Intelligence, including buying the score up every four levels and cybernetics, are retroactive, but temporary changes, including high-tech gear and magic items, are not. That dodges most of the really weird corner-cases and reduces the amount of bookkeeping you need to do.
On an unrelated note, the topic he's discussing about retroactive skill points is already covered in the Pathfinder rules. It's covered, in fact, that any increase to an ability score via buff, item, or some game effect that lasts 24+ hours (how it reaches that duration is unimportant to the rules) that you gain retroactive benefits including skill points for a higher Intelligence modifier, and the benefits are removed after the buff has been negated for an extended period (avoiding the pitfalls Owen describes about dealing with penalties and reductions; which wouldn't actually have an issue in Pathfinder do to the nerfs to the effects of damage and/or penalties).
One problem I've pointed out is that as written, the Headbands of Intellect are not only redundant but do not work correctly RAW. I realize you guys decided you wanted to try and limit people from putting on a headband, waiting 24 hours and learning some skills, then removing the headband, waiting 24 hours to lose those skills, then putting it back on and waiting another 24 hours and learning a different set of skills; but the problem is you guys didn't actually fix it. The way it's written, you actually get the skill points for the Intelligence increase, and you get the skill points from the Headband.
It also doesn't work very well just with the headbands. It adds additional bookkeeping that is necessary and bogs down play, having to write down what skills the headband grants as a note with each Headband. It's a lot easier to write "Headband of Intelligence +2" on a character sheet and just use the standard rules for long-duration Intelligence buffs, than it is to have to mark every Headband of Intelligence +2 with an extra skill: "Headband of Intelligence +2: Craft (Pottery); Headband of Intelligence +2: Survival; Headband of Intelligence +2: Profession (Underwater Basketweaver)". It also doesn't actually get rid of the problem of just swapping headbands to re-allocate your skills, and has weird effects if you already have those skills (which in turn promotes single-skill focus instead of well-rounded characters; because putting a few points into skills to represent off-focuses is patently inferior to maxing 6 + Int mod skills and then buying headbands to auto-max 1-3 other skills).
It also creates a problem with making certain Headbands way more useful than others. Since each headband comes with skills associated with it, the GM either has to fiat an appropriate skill, or determine a skill randomly. It would be no doubt that a Headband of Intelligence +2 that provides ranks in Perception is more valuable than one that provides ranks in Profession (Mining). That means that two Headbands of Intelligence +2 are worth entirely different values, while such is not recognized in-game.
The d20 system actually does recognize that odd-numbered items have different values from even numbered ones. A +1 headband is not as useful to nearly as many people (easily less useful to half the population) and is 1,000 gp. If you find it as random treasure, you're 50% likely to be able to benefit from it immediately (though some might choose to hold on to it since upgrading it to a +2 headband would only be 3,000 gp; making having the +1 version kind of like a coupon). It also adds to recognize that yes, 17 Intelligence is better (if only marginally) than a 16 Intelligence, because it's closer to the next breakthrough.
Deigo Rossi noted that there are already magic items and game effects that grant permanent/semi-permanent stat increases in increments of +1. So I'm very interested in hearing what the design decisions were behind this, since there are no obvious ones, nor are there universal ones, clearly.
|
Also, a party of 4 has about 8 odd attributes in total? What are they going to do... sit there, crafting +1 attribute items for everyone at level 3? There are so many other utility items to create, that can give you better bonuses for specific tasks/roles, why waste the effort?It's a novelty, an exception... not a big deal. DM's first rule... be magnanimous (even if I spelled it wrong!)!
Peace.
Benefits of getting an even characteristic if you have a odd value:
Strength +1 to hit/damage, more carrying capacity, +1 to related skillsDexterity +1 to AC, reflex saves, initiative, +1 to related skills
Constitution, +1 hp/level, fort saves, +1 to related skills
Intelligence, +1 skill point level, +1 to related skills, if you are a int based spellcasters +1 to the DC of your spells and one more spell (even if probably of a level you can't cast at level 3)
Wisdom, +1 to will saves, +1 to related skills, if you are a wis based spellcasters +1 to the DC of your spells and one more spell (even if probably of a level you can't cast at level 3)
Charisma, +1 to related skills, if you are a cha based spellcasters +1 to the Dc of your spells and one more spell (even if probably of a level you can't cast at level 3)
For 1.000 gp apiece, so 8.000 gp (4.000 if self made) and 8 days of work. Not a bad bargain if you can spare the money. There is other stuff you will want before those items but I will not consider them a bad purchase.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Sean, a side question about the stat enhancing items.
To get the full benefit you have to wear them for 24 hours and then never take them off. Rule wise removing them even for a round will require another 24 hours of attunement before you can treat the ability increase as part of your characteristic.
To me the idea of these guys taking a bath or going to sleep with crowns on their head, belts at the waist and so on seem a bit silly (especially if your strength enhancing belt is something shaped like a wrestling champion trophy belt). A poster in this forum has suggested giving their effect some "inertia", so that the effect last a few hours after you have removed the item.
So, how you an d the other developers manage that? You are strict with the never remove rule or you allow people to remove them for a tiem without major drawbacks?
@Diego Rossi, thanks!
Also, at Caster Level 3, required for Crafting such items... you'd need to know all those buff spells. Owl's Wisdom, Bull's Strength, etc... all 6 of them or have the appropriate "ability" or buy/find the scroll.
So you make level 3 (Wizard, etc...) and your choices wouldl be limited as far as spells if this is your intent.
These spells/abilities would then need to be used up on that/those day(s), spell slot used, etc...
And, if adventuring (no downtime) those days would quickly multiply. Also I'd say crafting would interfere with or prohibit other magical crafting, can't scribe scrolls, brew potions, etc... so those capabilities are rendered useless.
You'de be giving up a lot (as with any item crafting), just at lower levels when these +1 items seem the most crucial... it's really a lot (of what you've got).
So at higher levels, when it's easier, you have large spellbook and plenty of slots, the +1 isn't as helpful (relatively speaking). And, you're off to bigger and better. And, you've found +2 items.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Odd enhancement items are also good for the game. They allow both players and GMs more options and room for the game to progress at a fairly steady pace. Sean K. Reynolds has noted in his alternative Step Leveling system that having a more steady progression is often more appealing than having stuff thrown at you all at once.
Ability enhancement items tend to be very expensive (especially at low levels). That's fine since stat bonuses are nice. However, the way they are presented in the sample items is unlike the scaling found in other items. Compare to magic armor, which quite literally shares the same cost formula of bonus * bonus * 1,000 gp. Now let's imagine that armor only came in increments of +2. There is no +1 armor for 1,000 gp. There is only +2 armor (4,000 gp), +4 armor (16,000 gp), +6 armor (32,000 gp), +8 (64,000 gp), and +10 armor (100,000 gp). The effects and benefits are few and far between. You won't be able to afford any magical armor for a very long time (it is not until 7th level that it would be less than the first tier would be less than 25% of your whole WBL).
That is basically what is occurring with the +stat items. As a GM, this is problematic. It's often nice to find a permanent magic trinket that suits you, but the costs are too restrictive. If you have an adventure that runs from 1st-4th level or so, you might want to drop a magic bauble in the mix. But at 4,000 gp for the cheapest one, your treasure budget is most definitely squeezed; and you have the trouble of not being able to give out goodies evenly (if the party completes a 4th level adventure) consisting of around 12 equal-CR encounters (just as a baseline), the expected treasure allotment they should find around 13,800 gp worth of treasure or about 3,450 gp per party member for the entire adventure. That includes all treasures (gems, coins, art objects, potions, scrolls, mundane gear, etc). Obviously, there is no place for stat boosting items anywhere in there.
Now with odd stat boosting items, we can drop a cookie for the party. A pair of +1 strength gauntlets would be appreciated by any Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, or Paladin, while a +1 Charisma headband would be favored by Paladins, Sorcerers, Bards, and Oracles. Dropping a +1 Intelligence monocle (face slot) would be the envy of the Wizards, Alchemists, and Witches. And they could be dropped into the game relatively smoothly without break verisimilitude (NPCs might be wearing them with only marginal increase in power).
Now here's the finishing touch on what +odd stat bonus items are good for the game. Point buy clearly says that that odd scores are valuable. Raising a score from 14 to 15 means spending 2 extra points out of your limited point allotment. Having three 15s costs 6 more points than having three 14s, but has no immediate benefit. However, odd ability score items means that they will hit a slightly higher amount sooner (validating the increased expense). A character that begins with 14 Strength instead of 15 Strength saves 2 points during creation, but the guy with 15 Strength can reach 16 Strength with a +1 bonus item for 1,000 gp, while the guy who got a higher modifier sooner for cheaper must wait for a +2 item for 4,000 gp.
Now some might complain that the guy with a 14 Strength gets no benefit from finding a +1 item as treasure. The answer to that is quite clearly, "no, they do". It's just not immediate (just like the benefit of having a 15 Strength is not immediate). It comes later. Using the adventure example from before, the person with the 15 Strength gets moved to 16 a bit earlier, while the person who is 14 Strength gets two options. He can either sell the item for 50% and make 500 gp to put towards something he wants immediately, or hold onto the item and have it upgraded, effectively making it a 1,000 gp coupon towards upgrading to a +2 Strength item (which the party caster may be able to do in-house if they picked up Craft Wondrous at 3rd level).
In essence, the system just strait up works better, and provides a smoother transition with such items in play.
No, because we understand why it's that way in 3E. ... And this was a deliberate decision, not something the designers forgot to include in the game.
That's great. We'd like to have this understanding as well. If it's not too much troule, could you please share the developer's innate understanding of the 3E rules that made it so obvious to you and them that odd-numbered enhancement bonus granting items should be omitted.
I'm feeling pretty dense, because it's not clear to me why such an item shouldn't exist.
I said produced, not published. You can keep trying to misquote me and fight your strawman and I would be happy to keep correcting you. But what I said is a factual statement. Your disagreement is irrelavent both in to your side arguement and to the topic in general.
I do, however, applaud Ashiel for returning to the topic at hand and doing so in a respectful way towards the developers. I had my concerns what his reaction would be but they are apparently (and I'm relieved to say) unfounded.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Firstly there is the fact Sean K. Reynolds is simply wrong, since I actually posted a WotC endorsed adventure that you download from their site with an item that grants a +1 enhancement bonus to Strength.
I love the arguing with a Dev using weasel words, specifically "A WOTC endorsed adventure".
The person asked a question. A dev answered the question.
The game has rules. The rules are limitations. You can house rule to your hearts content, but the devs have set the +2 enhancement for a purpose and reason.
The challenge of the game is working within the rules. While you can win at monopoly quite easily if you simply declare "I own all of the land", it kind of kills the fun and challenge.
Similarly, if you bend and twist the rules because you don't like them so that you can "win", what exactly are you winning?
Will people please stop saying they know more than the Devs about how the Devs intended the game to be played. We pay them for their input for a reason.
If you don't like it, house rule it. Problem solved. You can say you disagree (I have) but at the end of the day, the Devs aren't "wrong".
They wrote the game.
|
|
Odd enhancement items are also good for the game. They allow both players and GMs more options and room for the game to progress at a fairly steady pace. Sean K. Reynolds has noted in his alternative Step Leveling system that having a more steady progression is often more appealing than having stuff thrown at you all at once.
Those are Sean's house rules for his personal game.
This is the ruling for the main game.
You can keep odd enhancements in your game. The gestapo isn't running into your house to steal your +3 1/2 dex and awesome bonus belt that gives you a +5 to smelling april fresh.
But the game doesn't allow odd number enhancements. It isn't arbitrary. There is a reason. If you don't agree with it, start up Ashiel publishing in the house rules forum.
Worked quite well for Kirth.
|
|
WotC is the official publisher of D&D. WotC published it. Therefore, it is an official published product front WotC.
Take a step back.
If this is all you have to defend your point...
Come on man...seriously. I've seen you on other forums, you are much better than this.
I personally was very unhappy with the brass knuckles ruling. I said so to Sean on the forum, I house rule it in my game.
But the ruling is the ruling. And I respect Sean for coming on the forums and making a ruling, even if it didn't make everyone happy.
No ruling on any controversial rule will make the forums happy. That is why those rules need rulings.
We ask the Devs to give us definitive answers and they when they do some people refuse to accept them as the answer, making the Devs want to stop giving definitive answers.
If the best you can come up with is "One time an adventure that was kind of sort of sanctioned by WOTC had an item..."
Come on.
House rule it for your game, but the ruling is in. And the ruling is consistent.
|
|
No, because we understand why it's that way in 3E. ... And this was a deliberate decision, not something the designers forgot to include in the game.That's great. We'd like to have this understanding as well. If it's not too much troule, could you please share the developer's innate understanding of the 3E rules that made it so obvious to you and them that odd-numbered enhancement bonus granting items should be omitted.
I'm feeling pretty dense, because it's not clear to me why such an item shouldn't exist.
Quite simply, because it gives an unfair advantage to characters who have odd numbered ability scores, which cost significantly less on point buy.
Quite simply, because it gives an unfair advantage to characters who have odd numbered ability scores, which cost significantly less on point buy.
But any character can have an odd ability score. It's not as if half the PCs in a group are going to have secret knowledge of the existence of +1 stat gear. Everyone (GM included) has access to the same equipment and has the same information.
If everyone wants to build their characters with odd stats, let them. They're making an assumption that they will be able to afford the items and have to survive with "wasted" points in odd stats until they can actually buy these items.
|
|
Quite simply, because it gives an unfair advantage to characters who have odd numbered ability scores, which cost significantly less on point buy.But any character can have an odd ability score. It's not as if half the PCs in a group are going to have secret knowledge of the existence of +1 stat gear. Everyone (GM included) has access to the same equipment and has the same information.
If everyone wants to build their characters with odd stats, let them. They're making an assumption that they will be able to afford the items and have to survive with "wasted" points in odd stats until they can actually buy these items.
They would be able to buy them sooner because they would be cheaper. Which is why people pick them.
It allows you to get a +1 bump to a bonus for 1/2 the price in gold, significantly less cost in point buy, and without wasting one of your ability points to spend every 4 levels.
It would be a significant change in the game that would give a substantial boost to characters with odd value scores.
For example, getting a 17 in point buy is 13 points. An 18 is 17 points.
A 15 is 7 points. A 16 is 10.
Yes, I understand what you're saying.
My question is: If every character can do this, how is it unfair?
|
|
Yes, I understand what you're saying.
My question is: If every character can do this, how is it unfair?
It isn't a matter of "fair" but of power creep. You would be significantly increasing the power level of the game, and encouraging players to pick odd numbered scores to work around the fact that bonuses come at odd numbers.
I could see how the +1 stat item could throw off the curve a little in early levels, but beyond that, it only smooths out the curve (as Ashiel says up-post).
If you're playing the game to the max, you'd want odd stats anyway because the Tomes go to +5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the major criteria for sometimes-reluctant rejection in the wondrous item round of RPG Superstar seems to be "the item that works differently for different PCs based on their stats/skill bonuses." Makes it impossible to price fairly on the open market. Items with even-numbered bonuses bump up everyone equally, whereas items with odd-numberered are significantly more valuable to a PC with odd-numbered stats than the same PC with even-numbered stats. I would wager that's the main reason they're not in the game.
As for tomes, etc., I'd guess they're grandfathered in on years of tradition, as the devs have said there are magic items in the CRB are there as sacred cows but that wouldn't make the cut given a blank slate, based on the criteria they use in modern design.
I just want to be clear, not here to argue... just trying to identify how much effort would go into "abusing" the mechanic.
Skill Bonuses cost 1/10th of an Ability Bonus (to craft/buy). It's an alternative that can be used to argue both sides.
If choose a given character's top 3 Skills, creatively relate them... Scout's Cloak, giving +3 to Acrobatics, Perception and Stealth and you've got an a la carte ability bonus increase (of +6 Dex, +6 Wisdom)
Still inexpensive, purpose driven on character type/personality, effectiveness, etc... Might even be cheaper (and get you 80% of what you need).
And, just to lighten things up... does an Exotic Saddle giving +5 Ride, take up the "Butt" slot on a character? Or does it count vs. the mount?
:)
Joana, those are some good reasons.
To nitpick, there are a few things that are affected independant of ability modifier (like carrying capacity).
Also, the same amount of ability drain does different things to different characters, just like (the opposite of) an odd enhancement bonus. Whether it's a +3 belt o' strength or 3 points of ability drain, it has a different effect on PCs with 14 and 15 strength.
|
|
I could see how the +1 stat item could throw off the curve a little in early levels, but beyond that, it only smooths out the curve (as Ashiel says up-post).
If you're playing the game to the max, you'd want odd stats anyway because the Tomes go to +5.
Ashiel says a lot of things. Read her post history. It is...interesting.
You also can only ever get 5 ability boosts in your career aside from Tomes, so the total is actually +10.
When you add an item that gives you a point buy work around for less, it effects the game. Odd number scores are cheaper because they provide little short term benefit, but are helpful when planning long term. It is one of the limits of the game.
Everybody wants lots of things that make them more powerful. The limits of the game are the challenge of the game.
You also can only ever get 5 ability boosts in your career aside from Tomes, so the total is actually +10.
I don't follow. You get 5 stat points over 20 levels and up to a +5 in any stat you buy the tome/manual for. Not sure how that equals 10. You'd be better off spacing out your stat increases to end up at odd stats to maximize the effect of the tomes.
Odd number scores are cheaper because they provide little short term benefit, but are helpful when planning long term. It is one of the limits of the game.
There are plenty of things that limit a game. A GM has control over the amount of money a character has and what that character has access to.
There is always opportunity cost. If characters save up and buy +1 stat items at early level, they are sacrificing other options to do so. They may get that extra +1 modifier in a key stat, but they give up other options to do so. That's balance, not power creep.
|
|
You also can only ever get 5 ability boosts in your career aside from Tomes, so the total is actually +10.I don't follow. You get 5 stat points over 20 levels and up to a +5 in any stat you buy the tome/manual for. Not sure how that equals 10. You'd be better off spacing out your stat increases to end up at odd stats to maximize the effect of the tomes.
Odd number scores are cheaper because they provide little short term benefit, but are helpful when planning long term. It is one of the limits of the game.
Not to be crass, but 5 (ability points) + 5 (max tome) = 10. When planning out a character, you can maximize out at +36 (20+5+5+6 max enhancement bonus)
The fact that as you are planning along the way you will have times where you don't get a bonus while you wait to level is part of the strategy of the game.
There are plenty of things that limit a game. A GM has control over the amount of money a character has and what that character has access to.
There is always opportunity cost. If characters save up and buy +1 stat items at early level, they are sacrificing other options to do so. They may get that extra +1 modifier in a key stat, but they give up other options to do so. That's balance, not power creep.
Now you are asking the GM to balance the game by not giving players access to items, something I am certain people on your side of the argument would vehemently disagree with.
In addition, you get the +1 for presumably half the price everyone else is paying for an equal bonus.
The Devs, going all the way back to 3E, didn't just randomly do this, in the same way they didn't randomly cap enhancements at +6.
House rule it in your game if you like.
|
1. There's not pre-made odd-numbered stat enhancing items in the game because for roughly half the people that used it, it would have no real game effect for the extra +1. But if you really want to have one, nothing in the RAW says that they cannot be made.
2. Great, someone found one obscure, PDF-only adventure that contradicts what SKR said. For god's sake, the man's only human. Do YOU have the full contents of every 3.X product that WotC has ever published and/or hosted memorized? If not, get off the man's back.
3. I know that d20 systems kind of encourage tedious nit-picking, but wow...this thread provided all of the useful information that it is really likely to within the first dozen posts or so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now with odd stat boosting items, we can drop a cookie for the party. A pair of +1 strength gauntlets would be appreciated by any Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, or Paladin, while a +1 Charisma headband would be favored by Paladins, Sorcerers, Bards, and Oracles. Dropping a +1 Intelligence monocle (face slot) would be the envy of the Wizards, Alchemists, and Witches. And they could be dropped into the game relatively smoothly without break verisimilitude (NPCs might be wearing them with only marginal increase in power).
It's worth pointing out that if the characters have an even stat to begin with, they're not likely to appreciate the +1 item very much (some, but not much), while the NPC (who had an odd stat) might be getting the equivalent of a 4000gp +2 item while only giving the PCs 1000gp worth of treasure.
Obviously it works the other way too - it only counts as 1000gp worth of treasure but benefits the party as if it was a 4000gp item.
That's the inconstancy that's problematical.
|
|
1. There's not pre-made odd-numbered stat enhancing items in the game because for roughly half the people that used it, it would have no real game effect for the extra +1. But if you really want to have one, nothing in the RAW says that they cannot be made.
I largely agree with your other points, but the Dev coming into the thread and saying "no" means that it wasn't intended to be allowed.
And the fact that the only example is from an obscure free release kind of makes it clear that it being enhanced in increments of 2 was an intentional thing, and not an oversight.
If you are trying to do something the Developers did not intend for you to be able to do (and I don't think anyone can reasonably argue this point with a straight fact), and you want to do it, call it a house rule and move on.
1. There's not pre-made odd-numbered stat enhancing items in the game because for roughly half the people that used it, it would have no real game effect for the extra +1. But if you really want to have one, nothing in the RAW says that they cannot be made.
I am curious to hear the design theory on it though.
2. Great, someone found one obscure, PDF-only adventure that contradicts what SKR said. For god's sake, the man's only human. Do YOU have the full contents of every 3.X product that WotC has ever published and/or hosted memorized? If not, get off the man's back.
I suggested to take care with sweeping statements. Most are always wrong. As for full content history of every 3.x product that WotC has ever published, no. I'd say a working knowledge of it though (what can I say other than it's been my absolute favorite passtime and I really like to read). I (and many others on these boards and GitP) have a solid understanding of game balance (at least solid enough to avoid PF Vow of Poverty and Antagonize). But then, I've also never been paid to screw monks up or to argue that it's unfair that Fighters can fight and that clerics should have fun too. We are all only human after all.
3. I know that d20 systems kind of encourage tedious nit-picking, but wow...this thread provided all of the useful information that it is really likely to within the first dozen posts or so.
It's good to see you and Ciretose feel the need to leap in and start some fights though. Might be able to keep the thread going long enough to actually discuss the balance aspects of such things so as to help GMs decide what they think. If the thread goes on long enough, we might actually hear the reasoning behind the "deliberate design decision" that has yet to be explained to balance out the demonstrations of it belonging.
It's worth pointing out that if the characters have an even stat to begin with, they're not likely to appreciate the +1 item very much (some, but not much), while the NPC (who had an odd stat) might be getting the equivalent of a 4000gp +2 item while only giving the PCs 1000gp worth of treasure.Now with odd stat boosting items, we can drop a cookie for the party. A pair of +1 strength gauntlets would be appreciated by any Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, or Paladin, while a +1 Charisma headband would be favored by Paladins, Sorcerers, Bards, and Oracles. Dropping a +1 Intelligence monocle (face slot) would be the envy of the Wizards, Alchemists, and Witches. And they could be dropped into the game relatively smoothly without break verisimilitude (NPCs might be wearing them with only marginal increase in power).
The NPC has odd statistics, which means they are not getting any more out of it than PCs with odd statistics. The difference is generally only a +1, which is entirely fair for that kind of expenditure. I actually noted that NPCs should be wearing such items in my previous explanation, since it makes little sense that magic items are just lying around when there are people to use them.
Such as been a staple for pretty much ever. Even the 3.x DMGs noted that for sake of a good game and good verisimilitude that NPCs should be using magic items the party comes across. If memory serves, the 3.x DMG gives an example of a hobgoblin. When building a treasure horde, particularly with monsters that don't use loot (such as guard dogs, otyoughs, or the gelatinous cube) the adventure still counts them for the purposes of overall treasure. So if the treasure of the adventure has a 2,000 gp +1 sword, the PCs should loot it off the 3rd level hobgoblin leader, not defeat the hobgoblins and then find it lying in the next room collecting dust.
Most permanent items are already overpriced for their benefit when viewed from the eyes of an NPC. A +1 weapon is 2,300 gp minimum. An oil of greater magic weapon can last the entire day and give you a +3 or better weapon. A +1 stat bonus item costs 1,000 gp. A +4 stat bonus potion costs 300 gp. The only difference here is NPCs may (and just may) find value in odd increments if their ability scores are also odd.
So it by no means provides some sort of great empowerment for NPCs. They already have way more access to power increases through the use of consumables. Any veteran can tell you that. An NPC can't even afford a +1 stat item until at least 3rd level, and doing so would eat 1,000 gp out of your 1,650 gp value. Not something most are going to have. Maybe a trinket on their boss.
Now what does provide great empowerment to NPCs is stuff like peacemeal armor (because hey, what NPC doesn't want +10 AC with a +4 maximum Dexterity for around 1/2 the cost of a +1 to a single stat?), potions, scrolls, wands, and so forth.
And empowering NPCs isn't exactly a bad thing. Even James Jacobs pulls these tricks. In The Red Hand of Doom, he sticks scrolls on NPCs who can't themselves cast such spells, so 3rd level clerics be dropping Summon Monster III spells like it was cool.
Obviously it works the other way too - it only counts as 1000gp worth of treasure but benefits the party as if it was a 4000gp item.
That's the inconstancy that's problematical.
No, it benefits them like a 1,000 gp item, because it is of limited power. If they didn't spend the extra points to get an odd number at character creation (13 costs 1 more point than 12, 15 costs 2 more points than 14, 17 costs 3 more points than 16) then it's just a valuable object that can be upgraded or traded.
Just because a character gains more benefit from an item because of their unique circumstances does not mean that it is worth as much as if everyone can use it. If that were the case, no one could afford many of the magic items in the book. I mean, wands are a great example of this. Wands are only easily usable by characters who have the spell on their spell list, and require a word to cast. Wands have a base price 750 gp. Meanwhile a command word item requires the same amount of effort to cast (a single word, a single standard action) but can be used by more people. Command word items have a base price of 1,800 gp.
By the logic that an item giving a similar benefit for one creature must cost or be priced at the same value as an item that gives an equal benefit to everything, then wands should cost 1800 gp base as well, because they share almost the same mechanic except some characters can get more use out of them than others.
So I don't understand why the answer of...
Magically enhancing an ability score always grants X modifier, because that's what the magic was designed to do (make you X better at Y), and a +1 does NOT do the same for an even-score-ability as it does for an odd one.
... is so unacceptable.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's cool. Just an example of why sweeping statements are kind of dangerous. They are almost always wrong. It's a habit I've had troubles with in the past myself.
Let me put it this way: that item should never have appeared in a Wizards product, and wouldn't have if an actual rules developer looked at it.
And it is edited by Penny Williams, who is an official writer and contributor for WotC and has had material appear in the Complete Arcane and other sources (also the wife of Skip Williams, last I checked).
Penny is a friend of mine. She is an editor. She is a gamer. She wrote WotC's 3E stat block spreadsheet for Excel, so she's very good at looking at RAW and creating something that matches that. But she isn't a rules developer (even though she's married to Skip), and as her friend and colleague it is perfectly fair to say "Penny's job was to edit that text, not to develop it, and an actual development pass would have caught it." There's stuff professional freelancers (such as Owen, who works for me) put in turnovers that developers have to take out. This would be one of those things--and would be something that an editor, who's looking for English errors, wouldn't necessarily know to take out, especially as there's no explicit rule in the game forbidding it. Just as there's no explicit rule saying you can't make a +3 skill item, or a +7 skill item, or a +9 skill item, even though it's a bad idea to do it.
One might think that given Paizo's emphasis on pdf products both free and otherwise, that suggesting that something that wasn't a printed hardback was somehow less official is a bit strange; don't you think Sean?
Not at all. Dirty secret: not all products get the same attention from the rules team, because not all products merit the same attention. Every word in a hardcover rulebook in the PFRPG line is read by me, Stephen, and Jason for rules issues. And on top of that, Jason reads the layout version of each book in the core line, front to back, before it goes to print. Yet we don't read every AP front to back, or every Campaign Setting book, or every Module, or every Scenario (in fact, most of them aren't read by the design team at all). We simply don't have enough time in the day to read every page of every Paizo product... and because we trust Rob, Patrick, and Mark to do their jobs developing those materials so they aren't published with crazy egregious rules violations. If they spot something weird, they'll talk to us about it, and perhaps we can work out a fix in a timely manner, but many times the answer is "don't do that, cut it or change it." And sometimes they'll miss something because it conflicts with a weird, obscure rule--and there are plenty of weird, obscure rules that trip up even the design team, because the "basic" book is over 500 pages long--and you'll end up with something that breaks the spirit of the rules (like +1 Str gloves) or the actual letter of the rules (like a potion of a personal-range spell).
Would you say that all the free to download Player's Guides from Paizo are not official product?
No, but I would say that rules in that are "less official" than something in a core book or an AP, in that if something in them is contradicted by a rule in a core book or an AP, that something loses the fight, and that something shouldn't be used as a precedent to justify breaking that rule later.
Would you suggest that the feats and charcter options therein are somehow not valid or supported by Paizo?
No, but the "weight" of those rules is certainly much less than in other books. Just as I'm comparing a rulebook for 3E/3.5 to a free adventure PDF with no listed developer and only one editor; the former has a lot more "weight" in a rules argument than the latter.
Owen K.C. Stephens isn't just some random guy. He worked as an employee of Wizards for over a year, and has had a direct hand in many D20-based products that Wizards put out. In fact, the following is taken from the Wizards of the Coast website.
Owen and I worked together at Wizards. He has also freelanced a lot for me at Paizo. I know exactly who he is.
Odd enhancement items are also good for the game.
Monte, Jonathan, Skip, Jason, and I disagree. (Stephen may disagree, too, but I haven't asked him about it.) Do what you want for your home game.
Sean, a side question about the stat enhancing items.
To get the full benefit you have to wear them for 24 hours and then never take them off. Rule wise removing them even for a round will require another 24 hours of attunement before you can treat the ability increase as part of your characteristic.
To me the idea of these guys taking a bath or going to sleep with crowns on their head, belts at the waist and so on seem a bit silly (especially if your strength enhancing belt is something shaped like a wrestling champion trophy belt). A poster in this forum has suggested giving their effect some "inertia", so that the effect last a few hours after you have removed the item.
So, how you an d the other developers manage that? You are strict with the never remove rule or you allow people to remove them for a tiem without major drawbacks?
Like many things in the game, I think it is a needless complication and I wouldn't worry about it.
|
|
So I don't understand why the answer of...
Magically enhancing an ability score always grants X modifier, because that's what the magic was designed to do (make you X better at Y), and a +1 does NOT do the same for an even-score-ability as it does for an odd one.
... is so unacceptable.
The game works based on getting bonuses at even numbers.
Why?
Because that is how it works.
They could have made every point over 10 is a +1. But they didn't. They made it even numbers.
This is the way the game is designed.
When the people who designed the game tell you what they intended, that is what they intended.
If you don't like it, that is why house rules exist.
Sean himself has house rules in his games. Hell, everyone I've ever played with has house rules.
But when you ask what the intent was, and you are answered by the developers, that is the answer to your question.
Personally, I completely agree with the ruling. If I didn't, I would house rule.
Arguing with the Devs means we are going to get less answers from the Devs.
If you don't like the answer, house rule it.
The game works based on getting bonuses at even numbers.Why?
Because that is how it works.
They could have made every point over 10 is a +1. But they didn't. They made it even numbers.
This is the way the game is designed.
When the people who designed the game tell you what they intended, that is what they intended.
If you don't like it, that is why house rules exist.
Sean himself has house rules in his games. Hell, everyone I've ever played with has house rules.
But when you ask what the intent was, and you are answered by the developers, that is the answer to your question.
Personally, I completely agree with the ruling. If I didn't, I would house rule.
Arguing with the Devs means we are going to get less answers from the Devs.
If you don't like the answer, house rule it.
Maybe you were referencing what I said as support to the point you made, but for some reason I read it as if you were trying to rebuke me. Just to be clear, I like that enhancement bonuses (and their counterpart, penalties [damage/drain]) work in values of 2, so that they only have an effect of 1 point per "application," up or down. I was asking why some of the people don't seem to accept this.
|
|
Maybe you were referencing what I said as support to the point you made, but for some reason I read it as if you were trying to rebuke me. Just to be clear, I like that enhancement bonuses (and their counterpart, penalties [damage/drain]) work in values of 2, so that they only have an effect of 1 point per "application," up or down. I was asking why some of the people don't seem to accept this.
My bad. Miss read the "unacceptable" part.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to point out that the adventure in question does not contain a +1 Strength item. It does contain this little gem:
Lifting Belt: This heavy leather kidney belt features brass studs and large buckles on both sides. Anyone wearing it gains a +1 enhancement bonus to Strength for the purpose of determining his carrying capacity. The belt does not alter the wearer’s actual Strength score, nor does it change his Str modifier. This effect does not stack with that provided by any other bonus to Strength.
So it looks like Sean is still right about this. Thank you Ashiel for the link. It saved me time looking for it.
You mean some of the best minds in d20 think that not all combinations of the formulas for Magic Item creation are a good idea? Shocking.
WotC is the official publisher of D&D. WotC published it. Therefore, it is an official published product front WotC.
Take a step back.
If this is all you have to defend your point...
Come on man...seriously. I've seen you on other forums, you are much better than this.
I personally was very unhappy with the brass knuckles ruling. I said so to Sean on the forum, I house rule it in my game.
But the ruling is the ruling. And I respect Sean for coming on the forums and making a ruling, even if it didn't make everyone happy.
No ruling on any controversial rule will make the forums happy. That is why those rules need rulings.
We ask the Devs to give us definitive answers and they when they do some people refuse to accept them as the answer, making the Devs want to stop giving definitive answers.
If the best you can come up with is "One time an adventure that was kind of sort of sanctioned by WOTC had an item..."
Come on.
House rule it for your game, but the ruling is in. And the ruling is consistent.
Feel free to take a step back yourself.
This is not my evidence for allowing such a concept. Someone else made a sweeping statement that neither Paizo or WotC has ever produced anything with an odd value stat boost. A link was then provided to the WotC website with an adventure that contained both said item and a WotC copyright. People then started moving the goalposts to try and redefine the importance of that document based on the author, publication process, etc. they refused to admit they were wrong, even though WotC clearly disagrees with them, because they are hosting the adventure and put their name on it.
I do not feel that this is the be all, end all off the discussion. I agree, the standard rule is even numbers only. It would be a house rule to allow odd bonuses. I believe their are merits to both decisions.
What is not up for discussion is the existence/non-existence of one such item in an official WotC product. That is it. I'm not attacking or insulting anyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is not up for discussion is the existence/non-existence of one such item in an official WotC product. That is it. I'm not attacking or insulting anyone.
The existence of the item is now in question. Download the adventure from the link Ashiel provided. Read the entire thing and see if you can find the gauntlets she mentioned. They don't exist at all. The closest thing is the belt that I posted. Since it does not actually increase a character's strength score, the claim is now false and any continued discussion on it is willfully ignoring the truth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please be respectful of paizo employees who post in these forums. They publish the game we are discussing, and participating in these forums to help us understand the reason why they make the rules decisions they make seems to be a generous act to me. I do not think that generosity should be rewarded with disrespect. I know that if I ran a web site with a message board, and people used that message board to disrespect me, I would have very little interest in participating on that message board, and would even feel justified in not providing the message board service at all.
Please be respectful.
Please be respectful.
Monte, Jonathan, Skip, Jason, and I disagree. (Stephen may disagree, too, but I haven't asked him about it.) Do what you want for your home game.
I'm more interested in the why. Can you, please, explain why you think it is not a good thing?
The existence of the item is now in question. Download the adventure from the link Ashiel provided. Read the entire thing and see if you can find the gauntlets she mentioned. They don't exist at all. The closest thing is the belt that I posted. Since it does not actually increase a character's strength score, the claim is now false and any continued discussion on it is willfully ignoring the truth.
Ah, poopy. I must be referencing the wrong book. I might have to rummage through my stockpile on my end. I know I've seen one in a WotC adventure somewhere.
I am fine with Sean's answers as to which he considers more appropriate however. I still wish to hear the reasonings behind these sorts of statements, however. Out of <3 for the game.