Belt of Incredible Dexterity +3


Rules Questions

201 to 231 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

@GrenMeera - Thanks for the work. I always find graphical representations more useful than piles of numbers (and I'm in the midst of an advanced degree in mathematics, I'm used to piles of numbers).

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, they don't actually have to be house-ruled into the game. The item creation rules exist, and there's nothing that specifically forbids items that grant an odd bonus to one of your ability scores.

And as Sean said, there is nothing saying you can't make a constant True Strike item.

But that would be insane to allow.

Every DM should make their own decisions, and the item creation rules are specifically noted to be a guideline.

The fact that the Developers specifically excluded the items from every publication, and a Dev appeared to say so has weight.

Some people take the item creation rules as law, when they are in fact guidelines.

And the people who take them as law are part of the reason we can't have nice things without people trying to exploit loopholes.


ciretose wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, they don't actually have to be house-ruled into the game. The item creation rules exist, and there's nothing that specifically forbids items that grant an odd bonus to one of your ability scores.

Every DM should make their own decisions, and the item creation rules are specifically noted to be a guideline.

I have the same vision of the items creation feats, but after a (short)search i could not find a quote, can you post the quote?, that should stop the claim that +3 boosting stats items are RAW, if not then is a much grey area.

Shadow Lodge

ciretose - I completely agree that they're a bad idea. I'm just saying that implying that anything that ventures outside of the listed magical items in the CRB or APG is BADWRONGFUN is an even worse idea.

Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, they don't actually have to be house-ruled into the game. The item creation rules exist, and there's nothing that specifically forbids items that grant an odd bonus to one of your ability scores.

Every DM should make their own decisions, and the item creation rules are specifically noted to be a guideline.

I have the same vision of the items creation feats, but after a (short)search i could not find a quote, can you post the quote?, that should stop the claim that +3 boosting stats items are RAW, if not then is a much grey area.

Everything in the magic item creation for anything not already in the book as an existing item section says it is a guideline subject to GM discretion and judgement calls.

I have to assume they are going by table 15-29 which starts with the word "Estimating" and the last line in the first paragraph on that page 550 says "...other items require at least some judgement calls."

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:
ciretose - I completely agree that they're a bad idea. I'm just saying that implying that anything that ventures outside of the listed magical items in the CRB or APG is BADWRONGFUN is an even worse idea.

I agree 100%. With DM consent. They left the rules open so you could be creative.

Some people abuse that. It is kind of like booze. I want it to be legal because I love drinking it. But some people can't handle the responsibility that comes with the privilege, and they need a good Bartender (GM) to tell them when they are cut off because they are making an ass of themselves.

Even if their drunk buddies are egging them on.

Shadow Lodge

ciretose wrote:


Kthulhu wrote:


ciretose - I completely agree that they're a bad idea. I'm just saying that implying that anything that ventures outside of the listed magical items in the CRB or APG is BADWRONGFUN is an even worse idea.

I agree 100%. With DM consent. They left the rules open so you could be creative.

I pretty much assume that EVERYTHING is "with GM consent". To include items (and rules) that are included in the rulebook as well.

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:
ciretose wrote:


Kthulhu wrote:


ciretose - I completely agree that they're a bad idea. I'm just saying that implying that anything that ventures outside of the listed magical items in the CRB or APG is BADWRONGFUN is an even worse idea.

I agree 100%. With DM consent. They left the rules open so you could be creative.

I pretty much assume that EVERYTHING is "with GM consent". To include items (and rules) that are included in the rulebook as well.

And this is the problem. People quote that estimation chart as RAW when it specifically says "estimation". Then they gloss over the part about requiring judgement.

I want the rules to be more open so people can be more creative. But then some people pop up on the board or at conventions with Noble Drow Liches with Genie Simulacrums that grant them wishes and complain you are being cruel for not allowing things they believe are RAW because they selectively read the word "guideline" as RAW.

Then when the Devs try to come in and help by providing guidance on intent so we can get on the same page, the same people throw fits at the people who wrote the rules as if they know the rules and the intent behind the better than the people who wrote them.

Which makes the Devs stop answering questions so they don't have to deal with the drama.

I think most people on the board want a fun, well balanced game that they use as a framework for their experience.

It's just a few people who want to show off how "clever" they are who ruin it for the rest of us, just like the guy who can't hold his liquor.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Speaking as someone who has a fine concern for game balance and not breaking things, I would house rule "yes, but the cost is the same as the next-highest bonus, that's my judgement call as GM for modifying the price".

Then I'd watch my players try to weasel me.

Liberty's Edge

Chemlak wrote:

Speaking as someone who has a fine concern for game balance and not breaking things, I would house rule "yes, but the cost is the same as the next-highest bonus, that's my judgement call as GM for modifying the price".

Then I'd watch my players try to weasel me.

Well played.


Ashiel wrote:


Perhaps we have a different idea about respect. Describing a point as stupid does not make the person behind that point stupid. It is indeed stupid to suggest that the reason they aren't allowed is because certain characters get more use out of them. If that same argument was applied equally, we would see that there would be no Holy Avengers (it's just an overpriced +2 sword for anyone who doesn't have a level of Paladin), no robes of the X archmagi (they're just robes to most, give negative levels to others, and function amazingly for a small subset of characters). So it would need to be more than that. Sean explained their mathematical explanation of it (which I feel is fair in a rolling environment).

Ashiel, this is apples and oranges. You aren't comparing two similar things, you are comparing two things that appear to be similar.

A Belt of Incredible Dexterity, regardless of the bonus it is provided, is designed to boost the wearer's Dex by a specified amount, which results in having a difference of +1/+2/+3 on any sort of Dex-tied roll, depending on the strength of the belt. Anyone with a Dex score is supposed to receive the same benefit.

A Holy Avenger is designed to go from being a +2 sword to a +5 holy cold iron sword with blah, blah, blah benefits for paladins. That's the intent of the weapon. Any paladin is supposed to receive the same benefit. Any non-paladin still receives the full benefits of having a +2 sword.

Your argument here would be more like saying that there are Holy Avengers out there that only work for paladins with an odd number of letters in their name or something silly like that.


ciretose wrote:

Of course allowing the items is a benefit to the players.

Each benefit doesn't break the game. Power creep is the death of a thousand cuts, not one. It benefits players with odd numbers, and by doing so devalues players who don't.

And on the whole in increases the power level of the game for players.

Some people aren't bothered by this, and that is fine. But some are, including the Devs, so they aren't included in the game and would have to be house ruled in.

You are correct, but there is value in seeing exactly how much of a "cut" this is when evaluating GM approval. My intent is to qualify and actually study the true numerical merit of this choice.

The devs, though quite talented in this field, are not perfect. Many of Sean's responses had no backbone. He was making a lot of blanket statements about balance without any data or examples. Perhaps this can give backbone to his argument by saying explicitly where and how the bonus will be exploited.

Kexle wrote:
Thanks for the work. I always find graphical representations more useful than piles of numbers (and I'm in the midst of an advanced degree in mathematics, I'm used to piles of numbers).

You're welcome!

I seemed to have restarted discussion on this thread and yet nobody has even once yet referenced the statistics and numerical data that I presented. >.> Ah well, can't account for everything! ^.^

Vendis wrote:

Ashiel, this is apples and oranges. You aren't comparing two similar things, you are comparing two things that appear to be similar.

A Belt of Incredible Dexterity, regardless of the bonus it is provided, is designed to boost the wearer's Dex by a specified amount, which results in having a difference of +1/+2/+3 on any sort of Dex-tied roll, depending on the strength of the belt. Anyone with a Dex score is supposed to receive the same benefit.

A Holy Avenger is designed to go from being a +2 sword to a +5 holy cold iron sword with blah, blah, blah benefits for paladins. That's the intent of the weapon. Any paladin is supposed to receive the same benefit. Any non-paladin still receives the full benefits of having a +2 sword.

Your argument here would be more like saying that there are Holy Avengers out there that only work for paladins with an odd number of letters in their name or something silly like that.

I have to side with Ashiel on this point. The magic items given in the core rule book give absolutely no indication that there is an intent for items to be equal for all characters (as per indicated by the bolded sentence in your quote).

In fact, a Belt of Incredible Dexterity + 2 already is not equal to all characters who use it. Depending upon classes and selected feats through character creation and progression, there are character specific bonuses.

Combat Reflexes is a selected feat through character progression. This belt will create an additional attack of opportunity possibility for one character and not for another.

I don't see how this is different for the odd ability score selection throughout progression.

Essentially, I've done what I can to give perfectly fine numerical data to use for arguing against this item. However, I still see no backbone to this point about magic items being equal for everybody. There are no equivalent examples.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
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?"

Obviously because they are planning to eventually release a book "Ultimate Odd Numbered Ability Score Increasing Items".


GrenMeera, I'm not sure you understood my point. I am not talking about what Dex does for a character, I am talking about raising a score.

Consider any weapon enchanted with speed. Give it to a fighter, and they will get an extra attack. Give it to a rogue, and they will get an extra attack. They ALSO receive an increase in the average amount of sneak attack damage they do in a round. However, the two receive the same extra attack - one just uses it better than the other. That's what speed is designed to do, and that's what it does.

The Belt of Incredible Dexterity does what it is designed to do - grant an equal amount of Dex to everyone, making them X better at it. Because the system uses modifiers and not the actual score to gauge how good at someone is at something (this is not quite universal but it is expansive enough that that claim can be made), the goal of the item is to increase modifiers by X, not the score. And when the system recognizes 2 points of score for 1 point of modifier, the items must be created in multiples of 2. The fact that a Dex-based character uses his Dex more than others does not mean the item is doing anything different - his Dex goes up just like any other character.


Ashiel, I think you and I have a fundamental differences of opinion on what we consider RAW. There are still grey areas within RAW. This is one of them. It uses the optional rules for magic item creation that are subject to DM approval. The rules for making those items are guidelines and the math doesn't really match up due to squaring being part of the equation. This is especially true for a +1 item.

To me, creating magic items with that chart is a house rule to begin with. Creating things that have never been in any book from WotC or Paizo ever is definately grounds for speculation. When a developer of both games weighs in and says it was deliberately left out that sends up a red flag to me. I just simply do not understand the mindset that is counter to this.

As for the bit about being respectful... I never call my friend's ideas "stupid" and they respect me enough to do the same. It has nothing to do with whether they or I have a thick skin or not. Calling someone's idea "stupid" is disrespectful whether it hurts their feelings or not.

Bragging about being boarderline obsessed with the system comes across as fairly conceited to me. The needed context was included and irrelavent. The point is to me that was the equivalent of being a self proclaimed rules guru whether it was meant that way or not. I don't think I was the only one who got that feeling.

One thing I can say is that I do wish that Sean had given a more direct "no". Not because I think it is needed. In fact, I think quiet the opposite. I think giving an outright "no" on something like this would be worse because it is the equivalent of telling you how to house rule in your home games. But in this limited capacity I think it would have been better here. It would have avoided a lot of in-fighting and pushback against devs. To me it is good enough that he didn't make any claims about what RAW is (I think this was purposeful) yet did weigh in on developer intention and what the logic was behind it. I don't think that a better answer could have been given.


Vendis wrote:
The Belt of Incredible Dexterity does what it is designed to do - grant an equal amount of Dex to everyone, making them X better at it.

The odd scored belt does exactly this. It grants an equal amount of Dex to everybody. The hitch? Everybody does not benefit the same from an equal amount of Dex.

In a way, isn't this splitting hairs? If you focus on one aspect of the item, you can see how others are treated differently between classes. However, you even tried to turn Ashiel's example of Holy Avenger around in the exact same way (give it to a Fighter and he will not receive the same bonuses as if you give it to a Paladin). If we try to apply your logic as a measurement of gaining the exact same bonus but having different value, the Holy Avenger becomes an example of this fallacy.

We can use excuses for every rule to go in a logic circle getting nowhere. This leads me to conclude that items are not equivalent in any true practice.

Vendis wrote:
Because the system uses modifiers and not the actual score to gauge how good at someone is at something (this is not quite universal but it is expansive enough that that claim can be made), the goal of the item is to increase modifiers by X, not the score.

Though you may be exactly right, I would wonder why ability modifiers do not receive the bonus directly. Game designers have the power to make their intent simple and clear by being direct. If the goal was to simply increase modifiers, the item could have clearly stated "Increases the ability modifier of Dexterity by 1/2/3. This is an untyped bonus."

The reason it does NOT state this is because the original D&D was designed around core abilities being the primary means of measurement. Ability modifiers was a transitional design practice in order to create a simpler system (and remove large numbers from an awkward THAC0). I've always been under the firm belief that this was an archaic remnant of one design decision clashing with the intent of modern developers.

There are reasons why, when transitioning to digital format with modern gaming, the actual ability scores have vanished from the game mechanic code and are only stored within the interface code for player menus (I have some source code that I am legally not comfortable sharing for this).

Still, the point remains that ability scores themselves are actually quite moot within the system. Pathfinder only recently made the ability score return to the scene after character creation when they determined that you are dead at negative Constitution score.

Even the aforementioned Dragon Age example in which the player simply get modifiers every 8th level show how you can redesign an old and archaic system and remove the unnecessary.


It isn't a fallacy, GrenMeera. It was a deliberate purposeful choice made by the developers to leave it out. The system was specifically built to not include odd bonus items. This was repeatedly stated by developers.

That is not to say that the rules don't support that it could be created within the framework of the item creation rules. However, regardless of whether or not you believe or agree with the developers, this was not meant to be in the game and will cause unintended balance issues.

Regarding your statement that actual ability scores no longer matter, this is simply not true. There have been numerous examples brought up in this thread including but not limited to: encumberance, feat requirements, spell casting requirements and the -HP you die at that you mention.

Liberty's Edge

@Grenmara - Respectfully, I am going to side with the Devs on this one, who up thread made their intentions and purposes clear as to why they did not include them.

The first word in the title of item creation rule table is "Estimated"

It is a guideline, not a right. As Sean pointed out, no sane GM would allow a constant true strike item, but technically if you believe the table is the "rule" rather than the guideline, it is allowed.

Which would be completely insane.

Someone appeared and asked if odd numbered items were intended. The Dev said no.

For me, end of story.

Shadow Lodge

I think one of the most hilarious things about 3.X/PFRPG is that the rules are exactly the same for PC, NPCs, and monsters; all in this huge attempt to be more fair...

Until you get to the WBL charts, where they decide to cut off NPCs at the knees.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

@Grenmara - Respectfully, I am going to side with the Devs on this one, who up thread made their intentions and purposes clear as to why they did not include them.

The first word in the title of item creation rule table is "Estimated"

It is a guideline, not a right. As Sean pointed out, no sane GM would allow a constant true strike item, but technically if you believe the table is the "rule" rather than the guideline, it is allowed.

Which would be completely insane.

Someone appeared and asked if odd numbered items were intended. The Dev said no.

For me, end of story.

You cannot legally make a constant true-strike item with the item creation rules. It lacks a standard duration that is measured in rounds, minutes, hours, or 24 hours, but instead has duration "see text". You quite literally cannot make a constant true-strike effect. Even if you could, the way the spell works, the effect would vanish on your next attack so what good would it be?

The cheapest un-ending true-strike effect is 1,800 gp; and un-ending is a bit of a misnomer. In essence, you can keep casting it, but it still requires round interruptions to your methods. Stopping to activate your true strike magic item means every other round you're getting the benefit. It actually hurts DPR in most cases.

Now you could get a quickened true-strike, which would be usable once per round as a swift action. However, that would cost roughly 90,000 gp, and humorously at high levels it's only really good for avoiding miss chances on your first attack (last I checked you cannot use a swift-mid full-attack but someone can correct me on that if I'm mistaken; and most folks who plan to be using attack rolls enough to warrant sinking around a tenth of your 20th level WBL into a true-strike item are probably going to hit on their first attack anyway.

Just throwing that out there. A big part of not producing horribly broken magic items often comes from reading and paying attention to the rules. Now would I change some of those rules? Well, actually I would. I think that items that have free-action activation (such as boots of speed and items using the same pricing formulas) should be swift-actions (as the the item rules were more or less ignored when they went into swift-action mode in early 3.5). I think that would prevent one of the few potential abuses in the item creation system -- which is a very elegant and usable system.

Quote:
Ashiel, I think you and I have a fundamental differences of opinion on what we consider RAW. There are still grey areas within RAW. This is one of them. It uses the optional rules for magic item creation that are subject to DM approval. The rules for making those items are guidelines and the math doesn't really match up due to squaring being part of the equation. This is especially true for a +1 item.

The problem with us discussing this further is I believe that a +1 item is only worth about 1,000 gp. It's a significant investment for a low-level character that would otherwise have spent such money on other options unless they happen to get a slight benefit from it (it is in fact +0.5 to an ability modifier, which is nice if you have +x.5 already).

As GrenMeera notes, it creates a smoother transition (as I noted before) and I feel overall produces a more quality game having experienced it in practice for years now. This fear of power creep seems funny to me, since this sort of potential has been in core forever; while Paizo has been producing a lot of power creep in their books. Heck, if spellcasters weren't bad enough before, now they're just terrifying. Spell-creep is a big one. Some feat-creep occurs too. Some archtypes are just plainly better than the originals (alchemists who trade minor poison benefits for more class skills and awesome summoning potential? Hells yeah, right?).

At this point we're discussing the same thing from two different islands. There is little to be gained beforehand. Sean has obliged us with his reasoning, GrenMeera has provided with a visual mathematical representation of the other side, and people (notably GMs and their groups) can decide from there.

Quote:
To me, creating magic items with that chart is a house rule to begin with. Creating things that have never been in any book from WotC or Paizo ever is definately grounds for speculation. When a developer of both games weighs in and says it was deliberately left out that sends up a red flag to me. I just simply do not understand the mindset that is counter to this.

The mindset is called "thinking for yourself". When experimentation and study reveal a different outcome than expected, you change your view, and you present your view. It's not about being right or wrong. These boards get way to hung up in trying to turn everything into some petty fight. It's kind of disturbing.

Quote:
As for the bit about being respectful... I never call my friend's ideas "stupid" and they respect me enough to do the same. It has nothing to do with whether they or I have a thick skin or not. Calling someone's idea "stupid" is disrespectful whether it hurts their feelings or not.

Well then I apologize that you took so much offense to it. Heck, the person I was actually talking to hasn't even seemed to care. Given the sheer amount of harassment and dickery that occurs constantly on the Paizo boards, one might think it wise to steel yourself that someone out there might think your idea is stupid and tell you so. Going "Your argument lacks consistency, rationalization, and seems fallacious, and seems to have been posed without ample consideration and appears to be without sensibility in a way that makes it appear blunt and stunted" is a lot more time consuming than saying "This argument is stupid, and here's why".

We'll agree to disagree on this one.

Quote:
Bragging about being boarderline obsessed with the system comes across as fairly conceited to me. The needed context was included and irrelavent. The point is to me that was the equivalent of being a self proclaimed rules guru whether it was meant that way or not. I don't think I was the only one who got that feeling.

Well you can read into what you want to. It's obvious that you are interested in making this into a fight. The context, I feel, was clear. I was not bragging but describing in earnest the amount of time and effort put into the game without simply stumbling over a reason for such a design decision. It was pretty clear -- or so I thought; given that I was asking Sean to elaborate since I had not discovered the reason after large quantities of time and effort.

Even after it was clarified, you still are talking this rules guru nonsense -- which I have not claimed. You are free to believe what you wish as of this point. There is likely nothing that I can say to convince you otherwise, as it appears that further effort would be too much expenditure of time and energy to surmount your inability to change your mind from your initial reactions. I hope one day it will be easier for you; but is no longer my concern.

Quote:
One thing I can say is that I do wish that Sean had given a more direct "no". Not because I think it is needed. In fact, I think quiet the opposite. I think giving an outright "no" on something like this would be worse because it is the equivalent of telling you how to house rule in your home games. But in this limited capacity I think it would have been better here. It would have avoided a lot of in-fighting and pushback against devs. To me it is good enough that he didn't make any claims about what RAW is (I think this was purposeful) yet did weigh in on developer intention and what the logic was behind it. I don't think that a better answer could have been given.

I will say, however, I think this is a dangerous path. Everything that exists now in D&D (if not the world) is because someone challenged the status quo. Pathfinder is a re-animated flesh golem of house rules and 3.5 which was a re-animated flesh-golem of house rules and 3.0, which is a re-animated flesh golem of old parts from 2E plus house rules (THAC0 and AC is essentially the same thing as a BAB and AC in 3.x/PF, only presented in one of the most un-intuitive ways imaginable).

All of the decisions in each system have been made for some reason, by a game designer at one point or another. As the test of time wears on, people can and will test them, experiment with other options, and revise existing options. That is how the game grows, and evolves, and in its own way keeps interest in the game alive further.

If you scoop past the arguing, the finger pointing, the incessant b%#$%ing, people acting like jerks, and everyone trying to "win"; we have about 5 really useful posts in the whole darn thread. The original post, a post on each side detailing the pros and cons; Sean's explanation for why it is as it is, and GrenMeera's breakdown of both methods mathematically. Everything else is dust and sound.


Kthulhu wrote:

I think one of the most hilarious things about 3.X/PFRPG is that the rules are exactly the same for PC, NPCs, and monsters; all in this huge attempt to be more fair...

Until you get to the WBL charts, where they decide to cut off NPCs at the knees.

I think it's offset by NPCs can be quickly and easily padded with NPC levels, consumables, and other stuff that events it out. If anything, from a metagame standpoint, NPCs have certain advantages that PCs don't, and vice versa.

I do really appreciate that NPCs and PCs otherwise follow the same rules. It's one of my favorite aspects of the system when compared to stuff like 4E. :)

Liberty's Edge

If this were allowed, I would pick almost exclusively odd numbered abilities.

Why? Because at lower levels I get two bonuses for the price of one, and can afford items much sooner, since +2 ability item is 4000 gp, outside of the price of most players til at least 5th level unless it is a drop.

Now you make it 2k and it is the same price at a +1 weapon enhancement.

This thread should have been over when Sean answered the question. Unfortunately some people think they understand the game better than the people who wrote it.


GrenMeera wrote:

The odd scored belt does exactly this. It grants an equal amount of Dex to everybody. The hitch? Everybody does not benefit the same from an equal amount of Dex.

In a way, isn't this splitting hairs? If you focus on one aspect of the item, you can see how others are treated differently between classes. However, you even tried to turn Ashiel's example of Holy Avenger around in the exact same way (give it to a Fighter and he will not receive the same bonuses as if you give it to a Paladin). If we try to apply your logic as a measurement of gaining the exact same bonus but having different value, the Holy Avenger becomes an example of this fallacy.

We can use excuses for every rule to go in a logic circle getting nowhere. This leads me to conclude that items are not equivalent in any true practice.

Note that if you do not have an odd numbered ability score, you do NOT benefit from a +1 item. Sure, the few things that care about the actual score (max level of spells you can cast, carrying capacity, etc.) might be raised, but what the score does for you in its entirety is not represented at all. Fluff-wise, it's like saying that the magic isn't strong enough to benefit you.

My point is that the magic (and mechanically speaking, the item) is supposed to boost your abilities that are tied to that score.

Quote:


Though you may be exactly right, I would wonder why ability modifiers do not receive the bonus directly. Game designers have the power to make their intent simple and clear by being direct. If the goal was to simply increase modifiers, the item could have clearly stated "Increases the ability modifier of Dexterity by 1/2/3. This is an untyped bonus."

Well, for one, it is an enhancement bonus intentionally.

Two (and more directed at the meat of your statement), that is what the item does. Look at this, from the PRD:

In a pure RAW sense, according to this, a +1 item wouldn't yield a benefit, because you need 2 points of increase to benefit from it, but I know you are arguing intent here.

The item is designed to increase your score by an amount that gives you X benefit. That benefit is 90% tied to the modifier. However, things like feats, spellcasting, and carry capacity care about the actual score, and it takes away from the concept of the item if it ONLY increases the modifier. Thus, the <+2 yields +1 mod> concept works fine, and setting a minimum of +2 is the only way to keep the entire theory working. And I am fine with that.

Quote:


The reason it does NOT state this is because the original D&D was designed around core abilities being the primary means of measurement. Ability modifiers was a transitional design practice in order to create a simpler system (and remove large numbers from an awkward THAC0). I've always been under the firm belief that this was an archaic remnant of one design decision clashing with the intent of modern developers.

There are reasons why, when transitioning to digital format with modern gaming, the actual ability scores have vanished from the game mechanic code and are only stored within the interface code for player menus (I have some source code that I am legally not comfortable sharing for this).

Still, the point remains that ability scores themselves are actually quite moot within the system. Pathfinder only recently made the ability score return to the scene after character creation when they determined that you are dead at negative Constitution score.

Even the aforementioned Dragon Age example in which the player simply get modifiers every 8th level show how you can redesign an old and archaic system and remove the unnecessary.

I have only been playing D&D for about 4-5 years, starting up in late 3.5e, so I can't comment too much on what's old and outdated and needs to be changed. My points reside almost solely in what is actually written down, since we are in the rules board of the forum of the developer's website.


ciretose wrote:

If this were allowed, I would pick almost exclusively odd numbered abilities.

Why? Because at lower levels I get two bonuses for the price of one, and can afford items much sooner, since +2 ability item is 4000 gp, outside of the price of most players til at least 5th level unless it is a drop.

Now you make it 2k and it is the same price at a +1 weapon enhancement.

This thread should have been over when Sean answered the question. Unfortunately some people think they understand the game better than the people who wrote it.

You have a tendency to not really advance an argument at all. You have a stance and just keep repeating it over and over until the conversation ends.

I don't find your reasoning sufficient so far. You can repeat it verbatim, but you're probably still not going to convince me.

Overall, I think as a house rule, either direction is fine and won't break a game. RAW, they aren't allowed, I agree.

Non-RAW, I don't think your reasoning is very good or thorough. It relies on a lot of assumptions I have not seen play out in the game or are evident to me in the design. I'm definitely no expert in game design, but it's become a hobby of mine and I've enjoyed conversations and discussions on the topic with some people who are pretty good at it. I dislike arbitrary rules, they smack of "because I said so" logic, which my personality will always find insufficient.

Anyways, there really isn't anything left to discuss here, unless we agree we're drifting the topic.

Liberty's Edge

Irontruth wrote:
ciretose wrote:

If this were allowed, I would pick almost exclusively odd numbered abilities.

Why? Because at lower levels I get two bonuses for the price of one, and can afford items much sooner, since +2 ability item is 4000 gp, outside of the price of most players til at least 5th level unless it is a drop.

Now you make it 2k and it is the same price at a +1 weapon enhancement.

This thread should have been over when Sean answered the question. Unfortunately some people think they understand the game better than the people who wrote it.

You have a tendency to not really advance an argument at all. You have a stance and just keep repeating it over and over until the conversation ends.

I don't find your reasoning sufficient so far. You can repeat it verbatim, but you're probably still not going to convince me.

Overall, I think as a house rule, either direction is fine and won't break a game. RAW, they aren't allowed, I agree.

Non-RAW, I don't think your reasoning is very good or thorough. It relies on a lot of assumptions I have not seen play out in the game or are evident to me in the design. I'm definitely no expert in game design, but it's become a hobby of mine and I've enjoyed conversations and discussions on the topic with some people who are pretty good at it. I dislike arbitrary rules, they smack of "because I said so" logic, which my personality will always find insufficient.

Anyways, there really isn't anything left to discuss here, unless we agree we're drifting the topic.

There isn't much to advance when the Dev comes in and rules on a topic, is there?

The item creation guidelines are guidelines. They are not rules.

Someone asked if an item was something the Devs intended. A dev said no.

Pretty simple.

Then others said "why" and the Dev (as well as the rest of us) explained how it leads to power creep and overvaluing odd numbered ability scores.

Pretty simple.

The counter argument has been "It's not that bad" and "I doesn't effect that much" which is hardly a response to power creep, since that is exactly what power creep is.

The item creation guidelines are exactly what they say they are, guidelines.

Where some people decided they were rules is a FAQ I missed somewhere, as the first word is "Estimate" and the description includes the words "require judgement".

I am sorry if the answer is repetitive to you, but I feel like I keep pointing at the sky and saying "blue" and people are arguing about it.

It isn't very complicated, and it is confirmed by a Dev. I don't know what else one would need to get a ruling.

Edit: tl/dr You are arguing with a Dev, not just me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lune wrote:
It isn't a fallacy, GrenMeera.

I... was referring to the idea that magic items are equal for all characters. I never called the ruling you are referring to a fallacy. At least I don't think I did... I never listen to a word I say. ^.^

ciretose wrote:
Respectfully, I am going to side with the Devs on this one, who up thread made their intentions and purposes clear as to why they did not include them.

^.^ Wow, a lot of people think I'm strongly against the developers. I'm so totally on the fence on the premise (though I may be hanging on the "allow it" side only slightly).

I'm more interested in the details of the discussion itself. Particularly, in response to that, I did not feel as if Sean was clear as you say. He was certainly final, but not clear. I was hoping for clarity.

Ashiel wrote:
The original post, a post on each side detailing the pros and cons; Sean's explanation for why it is as it is, and GrenMeera's breakdown of both methods mathematically. Everything else is dust and sound.

Hurray! I'm useful! ^.^

ciretose wrote:

If this were allowed, I would pick almost exclusively odd numbered abilities.

Why? Because at lower levels I get two bonuses for the price of one, and can afford items much sooner, since +2 ability item is 4000 gp, outside of the price of most players til at least 5th level unless it is a drop.

Now you make it 2k and it is the same price at a +1 weapon enhancement.

True, but you will not be min/maxing. At higher levels all of the benefits are removed and now you didn't start at a 20, you started at a 19. It's an interesting balancing act. All of the benefits are at low levels and never happen for longer than three levels. You are correct if your rebuttal is "but it is a benefit". I just wanted to point out that you say that you might do this, but it's not what the min/maxers would do, which is where the power creep needs to be monitored the most for the most drastic effect.

ciretose wrote:
This thread should have been over when Sean answered the question. Unfortunately some people think they understand the game better than the people who wrote it.

I am a little saddened by this mentality. The lack of questioning is the death of the game's evolution. In the end, developers are people like you and I, and are prone to the same mistakes. If we find something that fits within the system and offers a simple clean model for allowing it, it could easily become a new progressive mentality for future generations of gamers.

Also, I've talked to many many game designers and I happen to be one myself. To criticize myself just as thoroughly, game designers typically DON'T understand the game better than the players. We often have to beta release something just to realize that the players find loopholes we never thought possible. Our heads become to entangled in our own visions and are therefore blinded to the obvious things that the casual gamer can see. I hope we can all show enough wisdom to realize that we can be mistaken.

ciretose wrote:
Someone asked if an item was something the Devs intended. A dev said no.

Actually, the OP specifically said that he wanted to know a yes/no RAW, not RAI. He didn't want intent, he wanted rules. These two things happen to be on opposite sides of this argument or at least until you get to the item creation rules being GM's purview, like you pointed out, but I wouldn't call the GM's purview to be "against the rules".

Vendis wrote:
Lots of stuff

Yeah I can agree with all of that! Your wording and points seem good to me and I'm all for coming to a consensus.


Roshan wrote:
I have a belt of dexterity +2, at the most recent level I increased my dexterity from an even score to an odd one. Is there anything stopping me from increasing my belt of dexterity from +2 to +3?

The character's ability scores are basically meaningless. All that matters is the bonus they provide. If you were rolling dice for stats, they provide a means of translating a 3d6 spread into a useable bonus, but REALLY, the attribute IS the bonus.

A +3 belt is basically the same thing as a +1.5 belt.


ciretose wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
ciretose wrote:

If this were allowed, I would pick almost exclusively odd numbered abilities.

Why? Because at lower levels I get two bonuses for the price of one, and can afford items much sooner, since +2 ability item is 4000 gp, outside of the price of most players til at least 5th level unless it is a drop.

Now you make it 2k and it is the same price at a +1 weapon enhancement.

This thread should have been over when Sean answered the question. Unfortunately some people think they understand the game better than the people who wrote it.

You have a tendency to not really advance an argument at all. You have a stance and just keep repeating it over and over until the conversation ends.

I don't find your reasoning sufficient so far. You can repeat it verbatim, but you're probably still not going to convince me.

Overall, I think as a house rule, either direction is fine and won't break a game. RAW, they aren't allowed, I agree.

Non-RAW, I don't think your reasoning is very good or thorough. It relies on a lot of assumptions I have not seen play out in the game or are evident to me in the design. I'm definitely no expert in game design, but it's become a hobby of mine and I've enjoyed conversations and discussions on the topic with some people who are pretty good at it. I dislike arbitrary rules, they smack of "because I said so" logic, which my personality will always find insufficient.

Anyways, there really isn't anything left to discuss here, unless we agree we're drifting the topic.

There isn't much to advance when the Dev comes in and rules on a topic, is there?

The item creation guidelines are guidelines. They are not rules.

Someone asked if an item was something the Devs intended. A dev said no.

Pretty simple.

Then others said "why" and the Dev (as well as the rest of us) explained how it leads to power creep and overvaluing odd numbered ability scores.

Pretty simple.

The counter argument has been "It's not that...

You must have missed the part in my post where I said "RAW, they aren't allowed, I agree"

Liberty's Edge

RAW you have to ask your GM before you make any item not in the book.

Asking if creating a non-book item is RAW is like asking if having any specific non-book item is RAW. It depends on your GM.

What Sean is saying is the dev purposefully did not include such an item in any book, ever. So if he were your DM, no you could not have it.

When someone asks for a RAW ruling, they are generally trying to say to a DM "I am allowed, it says in the rules!".

But in this case, you can't say that. Now some GM's may allow it, and in some games it may not matter at all because of playstyle, etc...

But it is an advantage to not have to pay as much as someone else in point buy and gold and still be able to get the same bonus.

If that advantage isn't a problem in your game, great. But it does increase the power level of your game.

Liberty's Edge

Irontruth wrote:
You must have missed the part in my post where I said "RAW, they aren't allowed, I agree"

No, I saw it. But I was making a larger point not just to you specifically.

What you view as not advancing, I view as trying to keep the discussion on the discussion. The question was "Is there anything stopping me from increasing my belt of dexterity from +2 to +3?"

And the Dev answered that question by saying "Odd-bonus ability score items are deliberately not in the game."

And that should have been the end of it.

It actually wasn't about RAW or semantics. It was ""Is there anything stopping me from increasing my belt of dexterity from +2 to +3?" which was answered with "Odd-bonus ability score items are deliberately not in the game." by a developer.

What you should or should not allow in your home game is a house rules question, not a rules question.

Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I was attempting to clean this thread up, but it had gotten beyond that point. Locking thread.

Please, if you're going to have a rules discussion on these boards, do it nicely. Just because you don't agree with somebody else's approach or ideas doesn't mean you can make personal attacks.

201 to 231 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Belt of Incredible Dexterity +3 All Messageboards