Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DredPirate 02-08-06, 11:13 PM	From the DMG: Ability bonus (enhancement) Bonus squared x 1,000 gp Gloves of Dexterity +2 Is it possible to create odd-numbered ability enhancing wondrous items? Such as Gloves of Dexterity +1, +3, or +5? If this possible, is there a precedent for the ruling? i.e. A "Rules of the Game?" that could be referenced or a blurb in a book or errata I haven't seen? Thanks
Dragonteuthis 02-08-06, 11:46 PM	Odd bonuses to ability scores are generally not allowed/implemented/looked kindly upon for a variety of reasons. One is balance, with the way the stat system works. Another is kinda flavor, kinda mechanics. Isn't it odd that the 13 Str Fighter gets more benefit out of the +1 Str item than the 12 Strength fighter? 12: "We seem to be evenly matched; we both have identical scores in the sword-swinging competition." 13: "I have some gloves that will help us out. Look! They improve my score by 5%!" 12: "Strange, my score remains the same, even with identical gloves. Are you sure we're using the same gloves?" Of course, it *is* your campaign, and if you want to implement them, blahblahblahblahblah and have fun.
bondious 02-09-06, 01:33 AM	I disagree. In one of my games a player wanted to raise her charisma from 11 (+0) to 12 (+1) via a pair of sparkly Ear Rings of Charisma +1. From then on, though, if she wanted to raise her Charisma farther she would still have to pay +2 more (making it a +3 item, bringing her Cha to 14) to see any real benefit. This didn't break my game any, and all players were able to do the same. In fact, at one point the fighter in my game got to 8th level and applied his bonus to strength, bringing it from a 16 to a 17. He already had Gauntlets of Ogre Power +2, so his strength was effectively 19. I ruled that he could boost those Gauntlets up to +3, he got his extra +1 to attack and damage, and our game went on just fine. If this possible, is there a precedent for the ruling? i.e. A "Rules of the Game?" that could be referenced or a blurb in a book or errata I haven't seen? I don't think that this is even necessary since, as you stated in your post, there are rules in the DMG enabling ability enhancements of just about any number...with no mention that they must be even numbers at all. That's my opinion. :D
Bob Loblaw 02-09-06, 01:40 AM	I have been allowing the +1 items for several years now and have seen zero problems occur. I haven't seen any decent arguments to prove that there is really any problem.
ScipioX 02-09-06, 02:22 AM	Odd bonuses to ability scores are generally not allowed/implemented/looked kindly upon for a variety of reasons. One is balance, with the way the stat system works. Another is kinda flavor, kinda mechanics. Isn't it odd that the 13 Str Fighter gets more benefit out of the +1 Str item than the 12 Strength fighter? 12: "We seem to be evenly matched; we both have identical scores in the sword-swinging competition." 13: "I have some gloves that will help us out. Look! They improve my score by 5%!" 12: "Strange, my score remains the same, even with identical gloves. Are you sure we're using the same gloves?" Of course, it *is* your campaign, and if you want to implement them, blahblahblahblahblah and have fun. ONTOH: Str 12 fighter to Str 11 fighter: Gee even though I'm stronger than you, it doesn't seem to make any difference at all when we spar. Allowing +1 items is not gonna make or break the game. It will help lower level characters a bit, and will make it more interesting when charcters with even stats hit lvl 4.
MasterOfPsychic 02-09-06, 02:30 AM	And I really thought that it should pay off to have higher ability scores! EG. It SHOULD be easier to improve the 13 to 14 than the 12 to 14. And: Mr. 12 becomes stronger, just not mechanicly.
jokotoko 02-09-06, 02:45 AM	Another argument in favor of allowing this is the fact that there are "tomes of +1 <insert ability score>" as well. All the arguments that can be used to be against these +1 items would also hold for these tomes. But since these tomes exist, I would allow it for items as well.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-09-06, 11:36 AM	Tomes use a different mechanic. A tome is basically a delayed version of somebody casting wish on you a certain number of times. If you can only afford one, then you only get a +1 inherent bonus. Odd-numbered enhancement items are a bad idea for the exact reason that was already mentioned; only half the population will ever get any benefit from them. So in order to retain that benefit for your entire career, you have to have an odd-numbered stat, never ever put an ability point into it, and never ever read an odd-numbered tome. "Whoops, that was a manual of gainful exercise +3? I guess these gauntlets of half-orc power are no longer granting me any appreciable bonus whatsoever. That's kinda weird, huh?"
Esponer 02-09-06, 12:18 PM	Personally, I'm fine with +1 ability bonus items, but I'd probably disallow them for myself were I making a Character Optimisation build. A strength score of 13 should feel greater than a strength score of 12, in terms of roleplaying. If your character knows that he's not hitting any harder based on the hit point system in D&D, then he is metagaming. If someone with 12 strength dons gloves of strength +1, he will feel stronger, and he shouldn't ever know that in actual fact the game isn't recognising that bonus in his attack and damage rolls. Furthermore, a strength score of 13 should be closer to being raised to the next step the game notices than a strength score of 12. As the game stands at the moment, anybody with any common sense will only ever have even scores, unless they are specifically trying to meet prerequisites for feats.
simon_tage 02-09-06, 12:37 PM	I don't allow them in my games. Gloves of dexterity +2 help everyone out equally from a mechanical standpoint. I see no need for a +1 stat item. Is it against the rules to have them? I don't think so.
Nakou the Saiyan 02-09-06, 12:45 PM	Odd numbered ability scores do have an in game effect, and one of them has already been mentioned. Prerequisites for feats are always as a rule odd-numbered for this reason, because a 13 is better than a 12. There is also something else to consider here. +1 items are far better for casters than non-casters. That extra +1 gives you an entire spell level worth of magic to play with that you may not have had otherwise. Now if you were a primary caster than you would probably have this under control anyway, but what about someone like a ranger or paladin. He has so many requirements that Wisdom may fall short on the priority list. This would probably help them out most of all.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-09-06, 12:55 PM	A strength score of 13 should feel greater than a strength score of 12, in terms of roleplaying. If your character knows that he's not hitting any harder based on the hit point system in D&D, then he is metagaming. If someone with 12 strength dons gloves of strength +1, he will feel stronger, and he shouldn't ever know that in actual fact the game isn't recognising that bonus in his attack and damage rolls.That's fine for Strength because your carrying capacity will go up, but what about the other five ability scores? A guy with an 8 Constitution gains absolutely no mechanical benefit from an amulet of health +1. He paid 1000 gp for flavor. And not much flavor. Or you could just outlaw odd enhancement bonuses and avoid the situation entirely, which is exactly what they did.
pres_man 02-09-06, 01:45 PM	Odd stats do make a difference from even stats, just look at the amount of ability damage they can take for example. As others have already said, if you are only focusing on the actual combat mechanics then use they don't make sense, if you try to roleplay, then they do. Lets take two commoners: A: Str 10, Dex 11, Con 10, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 11 B: Str 11, Dex 10, Con 11, Int 11, Wis 10, Cha 10 For some +1 items A is going to get a noticable (in combat) difference then B, for other items B will get a more noticable difference. If you allow +1 items for all of the abilities then it will all balance out. Though if roleplayed correctly these two should be quite different individuals based on their stats, even though both are actual very similiar from a purely mechanical viewpoint. Personally I find the whole agrument that some people might find certain items better then other people silly. If a person had a 13 str and put on gloves of +1 str, why shouldn't they be better then if someone had a 12 str and put on the same gloves. I assume that most DMs allow the players to continue to enhance their items, so those +1 gloves of dex that we looted when the rogue died could eventually be enhanced to +2 gloves of dex for the fighter. The only real argument is that the price should be a bit more then just trying to use the formula (but not as pricey as the obviously next highest even one). So I would suggest the following prices for odd number enhancement items +1 = 2,000 gp +3 = 12,000 gp +5 = 30,000 gp +7 = 56,000 gp +9 = 90,000 gp +n = n*(n+1)*1000 gp (where n is an odd number)
Romanus_Mortus 02-09-06, 02:18 PM	Sure, +1 enhancements don't make sense from a pure optimization standpoint, as they don't guarantee a +1 to the modifier. That being said, I see every reason in the world to allow odd-numbered modifiers. First off, any improvment to a score is better than not an improvement (someone mentioned ability drain, a perfect example). Furthermore, odd numbered bonuses can be seen from the flip-side of optimization. Assuming you are working a character up from scratch, and find (GASP!) items rather than solely relying on buying them (which I would argue is more common in campaigns than these boards would lead one to believe), then that +3 can be really useful. Sure a +4 is nice now, but your character has no reason to expect a +4 bonus. And from the player's perspective, now that's three fewer times they have to burn a level-based stat increase to reach a higher score in that stat. sure, Mr 10-in-the-stat only goes to 13, while Mr 11 goes to 14. But next time mr 14 spends a level-increase, he only goes to 15 (reaping no appreciable benefit according to some). Mr 13, however, now goes to 14, feeling the full advantage of the item. If you are going to argue against odd-numbered enhancement bonuses, you may as well houserule that every 4th level a character can increase an ability by two points. After all, who would ever want to add just one point to an ability?
Esponer 02-09-06, 07:04 PM	That's fine for Strength because your carrying capacity will go up, but what about the other five ability scores? A guy with an 8 Constitution gains absolutely no mechanical benefit from an amulet of health +1. He paid 1000 gp for flavor. And not much flavor. Or you could just outlaw odd enhancement bonuses and avoid the situation entirely, which is exactly what they did. Perhaps I'm a little less convinced that we should be so bound to mechanics. But although you may not have any mechanical advantage with 9 Constitution, you are closer to 10 Constitution and can get there the next time you get to increase your ability scores from level progression. Besides, are you in any way not paying for the right to gain more mechanical benefit from a +1 item than another person? You're paying for it. You paid for your ability score to be one point higher. It's not a freebie decided based on flipping a coin.
Bob Loblaw 02-10-06, 01:02 AM	Tyler, I usually agree with everything you have to say. However, I have to disagree with this: Or you could just outlaw odd enhancement bonuses and avoid the situation entirely, which is exactly what they did. I have not seen any rule that says that they have been outlawed, or frowned upon, or anything else. I have seen that they only show the most common types of magic items in the books to show what can be done. I have play tested the +1 enhancement bonus as have many other people. It has yet to be a game breaking item.
jokotoko 02-10-06, 04:32 AM	Tomes use a different mechanic. A tome is basically a delayed version of somebody casting wish on you a certain number of times. If you can only afford one, then you only get a +1 inherent bonus. Odd-numbered enhancement items are a bad idea for the exact reason that was already mentioned; only half the population will ever get any benefit from them. So in order to retain that benefit for your entire career, you have to have an odd-numbered stat, never ever put an ability point into it, and never ever read an odd-numbered tome. "Whoops, that was a manual of gainful exercise +3? I guess these gauntlets of half-orc power are no longer granting me any appreciable bonus whatsoever. That's kinda weird, huh?" I don't see the difference in mechanics. Sure the source is different and the type of bonus is different (inherent vs enhancement). However, the mechanics work the same. Going by your argument, giving +1 stat increases every four levels is a bad idea as well. Some people will benefit from it (those with odd scores) and some will not. The same with tomes, not everybody benefits from reading a +1 tome (or receiving a single wish for that matter). So there are plenty of other examples in which only part of the population benefits from a stat increase.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-10-06, 08:05 AM	One, if it were legal, it would be in the books. It isn't, therefore it's probably not. There are things that are technically legal that aren't directly covered by the books like magic staves enchanted as magic weapons, but I don't think this is one of them. Secondly, it's a bad idea to have an item that can be used by multiple people not benefit all users evenly. An inherent bonus or a level boost can only be used by one person, so those 1 point increments are fine. A wearable wondrous item that simply doesn't do anything for about half the world's population with no discernable reason is a little fishy. It breaks verisimilitude. If you really want to allow it, go right ahead. This is D&D. You can do whatever you want. I just think it's a little risky to allow a 7,500 gp headband that will boost all of your ability scores by one. If you've got a character with a bunch of odd stats, that's a huge boost for a small price.
simon_tage 02-10-06, 08:31 AM	Tomes and Character Level bonuses are different in my opinion for one HUGE reason: they don't go away. The belt of strength can be lost, stolen, destroyed. I for one do not allow "temporary" stats like those from a belt of strength to qualify for feats and the like. It makes for less of a headache when the character is without them for any reason. The +1 stat items, in my opinion don't work from both an RP standpoint and a mechanics standpoint. They are not equal to all characters across the board and they are hard to explain RP wise like in the following example. Fighter with 14 str: "Wizard friend, could you make me gauntlets to make me stronger so I can fight better?" Wizard: "Sure, come back next week!" Next week- Fighter with 14 str: "Are they ready?" Wizard: "Sure are, here ya go!" Hands him gauntlets +1. Fighter with now 15 str: "thanks" Player of Fighter with now 15 str: "Umm, that sucks. I wanted +2" DM: "well since knowing stats would be metagaming the wizard just made what he made, he has no way of knowing that you gain no appreciable benefit from +1 gauntlets." Plus 2 increment items help EVERYONE regardless of stat. It just makes more sense to keep them that way.
jokotoko 02-10-06, 09:29 AM	Tomes and Character Level bonuses are different in my opinion for one HUGE reason: they don't go away. The belt of strength can be lost, stolen, destroyed. I for one do not allow "temporary" stats like those from a belt of strength to qualify for feats and the like. It makes for less of a headache when the character is without them for any reason. It might have something to do with the fact that our group still uses 3.0 (largely). The abilties buffers provide 1d4+1 (which can easily become an odd number) for 1 hour/caster lvl. As such, we might be more comfortable with odd enhancements to ability scores.
Dęгơs 02-10-06, 10:00 AM	One, if it were legal, it would be in the books. It isn't, therefore it's probably not. It is legal, and it is in the books. <clears throat> all right, now i want everybody to get out you DMG and turn to page 285. Tyler, would you start the class off by reading the chart, please? the only rule i can find in any of the books for the creating of stat-boosters is in the DMG in the "how to create a magical item" section at the back. the chart for stat-increasing items says: Ability Bonus (enhancement) Bonus squared x 1000gp it does not say you may only do this with even stats, nor does it even mention anything at all about it outside of the chart. the reason they made the premade items in the ooks all even is so on of your characters wont be getting shafted by an item in random treasure generation. if they get the item made for them custom, it isnt unfair at all. as for the argument that it doesnt help as much, wouldnt you (as a player) be happy to only have to spend a little more to keep your item of +whatever viable the next time you put a point into that stat, or read a book? bottom line is if you dont like them (Tyler) houserule that they cant be made in your world. but if you do, call it that - a HOUSErule, and dont try to sound like there is an official ruling backing you up when there isnt.
Zilvar 02-10-06, 10:10 AM	I remember this discussion coming up some months ago...and I think it turned into an argument between Tyler and the current person running as part of the popular Fighter challenge arena postings. What I found interesting was a segment of the arguemnt that went, essentially, if you were to purchase a +1 stat boost item (starting with an odd stat), and upgrade it at approximately the same rate at which you gained level boosts to a stat, the costs stayed well within the the bounds of character wealth and the advancements still progressed logically. Your mileage may vary, and I doubt that my current DM would allow it, but I don't see a problem with the proposed item.
pres_man 02-10-06, 10:59 AM	Right Zilvar, it really came down to price in the end. The only real concern was, was it too cheap for the advantage? That is why I suggested an alternative formula from the one Dęгơs stated. For an odd ability bonus n, I suggest a person uses = n*(n+1)*1000 gp, instead of n^2*1000 gp (use this for even). What some people have to remember is that assuming the stats are rolled a person should have approximately 3 even and 3 odd stats. So half the stats get a little boost by this while half don't. Since everyone should have about the same number this is balanced towards everyone. Also the concern that some don't get the same bonus is just not really an issue. For one thing, its magic, it doesn't have to work exactly the same for everyone. PCs would feel stronger/more agile/healthier/smarter/wiser/personible so they would think it was doing something. Also the +2 doesn't always give people the same bonus now as it is. Let's look at a Str 10 person using a greatsword (doing 2d6 damage) and a Str 12 person using a greatsword (doing 2d6+1 damage). Both get guantlets of +2 Str. Now the first fellow does 2d6+1 damage (thanks to his new Str 12), but the second fellow does 2d6+3 damage (thanks to his new Str 14). Oh my god! The second guy got more benefit (+2 more damage vs +1 more damage) from the same item! That is so not fair! See, not everything has to be treated the same by everyone. Power is not a real issue, everyone either has, or will have some odd stats so can get some benefit from odd ability bonus items. It will all balance out in the end. The real only concern is the price, use my suggested formula or the book's or come up with your own or just be honest and say, "I don't want to think about making unique items, you may only use the listed items."
Dragonteuthis 02-10-06, 11:12 AM	It is legal, and it is in the books. Um, I hate to break it to you, but the magical item creation rules are GUIDELINES, not hard-and-fast rules. however, if you view them as such, I would expect to be able to create a ring of True Striking (granting a +20 insight bonus to all attacks and allowing the wearer to ignore concealment) for 8,000 gp if I was ever in a campaign run by you. It's only fair, after all. and dont try to sound like there is an official ruling backing you up when there isnt. Well, in the interests of being fair, you should abide by your own rule too.
Bob Loblaw 02-10-06, 09:45 PM	however, if you view them as such, I would expect to be able to create a ring of True Striking (granting a +20 insight bonus to all attacks and allowing the wearer to ignore concealment) for 8,000 gp if I was ever in a campaign run by you. You need to use the same guidelines he is using. You should be using the Weapon Bonus line which is Bonus squared x 2000. This would put the cost at 400,000 gp. If we used your calculations, then we would instead have only +4 ability enhancements that cost 12,000 gp. The magic item creation guidelines are there to help DMs create items that are not already in the book. They should be used with care and anything that the DM feels is incorrectly priced should be corrected. I don't necessarily agree with pres_man's evaluation that they are too cheap as +odd items. He has done what is supposed to be done with the magic item creation rules. He has adjusted them to fit what he feels is appropriate. Exactly how the rules state.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-10-06, 10:35 PM	It is legal, and it is in the books.Oh, I'm well aware of the formula. I'm also aware of the fact that there already is a wondrous enhancement item for all six ability scores and the only enhancement bonuses they bothered to put together were +2, +4, and +6. It's more balanced and less problematic than if you allow odd enhancements. I mean by your reasoning, I could make an item that grants a +2.5 enhancement bonus to Strength for 6,250 gp. It follows the formula, doesn't it? But even if it was legal, it still wouldn't be any better than +2 item.
pres_man 02-10-06, 11:11 PM	Except you'd be closer to upgrading it further (merely pay the difference in price). Which has the added benefit that you don't have to carry around 100's of pounds of gp, you can just slowly upgrade your gear. :D
High Octane 02-10-06, 11:13 PM	Actually strength matters, only because of carrying capacity. However, on the whole, people wouldnt make a magic items whose effects were so subtle that the person they sell it to will want a refund. So +1 is out. In any case, the +3. 5. etc only really make any sense if you are metagaming. And, METAGAMING BAD! *Fwaps DredPirate with a rolled up newspaper* Naughty player! No XP!
ashcat_lt 02-10-06, 11:15 PM	From the DMG: If this possible, is there a precedent for the ruling? i.e. A "Rules of the Game?" that could be referenced or a blurb in a book or errata I haven't seen? Thanks Yes, it is possible. No, there is not an "official" precedent in 3.x That being said, I see no good reason to outlaw it. I also see no good reason anyone would get upset about the proposal. I'm really trying to put in my vote and weigh the verdict in the direction of a more reasonable perspective. I will, however recap: There is a working formula in the DMG, and no formal prohibition in any WOTC materials. Odd numbered stat boost items have the following effects: str:weight allowance int, wis, cha:maximum spell level con:running, suffocation/drowning all:ability damage/drain, level-based stat increases, feat prereqs most of these come from the posts above, i have added a couple (somebody asked about Con), I'm sure there are more. The downsides are minimal. Most of the arguments we have heard so far against are ineffectual and/or misinformed. I find it compelling that everyone who has mentioned actually having these items in play in a campaign has given a favorable response.
shadowfoot666 02-10-06, 11:18 PM	if it matters... the submission guidelines for any reputable d20 publication (dragon mag or say a WOTC module for example) wouldnt allow an item like this to be printed. the reasons for such have already been stated.this said, if you dont care and your not trying to get your stuff published then there is no reason why an item like this should break your game as long as its priced correctly and your players arn't mass manufacturing them for every character they have with an odd stat.
Dragonteuthis 02-11-06, 12:16 AM	You need to use the same guidelines he is using. Yeah, I was just using some sarcasm. Re-read his post and mine, and you'll see what I mean.