Gauntlets of Ogre power

[Spectre9000]

Any rule in the game is "optional". There are pages and pages of discussion on the merits of various feats and those are specifically listed as "optional rules". That's not a good reason to not discuss their merits and faults.

That's a cop out. Are classes optional? Are spells/abilities/ability scores optional? Yes, technically a DM can change anything and everything, and turn his D&D into a game of Bejeweled. However, there is the core infrastructure that exists within D&D that makes it D&D. Magic Items are not part of that and by their very nature, as described in PHB and DMG, are in no way set. The Magic items presented are done so as examples for DMs to generate ideas. DM's can create and give out bad Magic Items, and we can debate each one with intrinsic detail and never get anywhere, because they will always be subject to perspective and opinion. You will always have bad DM's, and if players don't like how they're using magic items, then perhaps they should find another DM. The flaws of the magic items pertinent to this thread were pointed out early on, and now everyone is just beating a dead horse.

[Shaofoo]

That was more providing a reason why people might be passionate about it. I personally love the items, as they're great for my off-stats!

People are passionate because of the fallacy of treating a single scenario as the end all scenario that defines the game past, present and future. Getting the Belt is the only thing that matters and nothing in the past or future will matter even if down the line the other player gets something else that will upset the balance for the first player in the process that is irrelevant.

[Nu]

Except the DMG clearly says that to use your discretion to give out items and that the table is just a suggestion and not a guideline at all. In fact you can't get a magic item till level 11th in a Low magic item campaign. You can just raise the level and nothing else if you are starting at a higher level, nothing in the book says that you have to give out magic items.

If using the suggestions gives you problems then don't use those suggestions and instead use your judgement. The DMG is full of suggestions that you can add, remove or modify as you see fit. Which is why the whole magic items being a problem is laughable because it is only a problem if the DM allows it to be.

Again, it is the only guideline given for starting players out beyond the first tier. You call it a suggestion, but it's the only one; if you choose to ignore it then you're on your own. And we cannot just cherry-pick the "low magic" side, because perhaps someone does want to run a high magic campaign but is concerned over the power level of some items over the others--if anything, it's more of a problem then, because magic items will be expected and more common but can possibly break the game (and no, that's not the point of magic items, at least not to everyone)! It's a perfectly legitimate discussion to figure out which magic items might be a problem and why they are a problem.

You can discuss the merits and flaws of anything but the option of not adding feats or magic items is not only valid but accepted and supported by the book. If something is a problem and omitting the item so the problem doesn't exist is a valid answer.

"If you don't like it, don't use it" is not an answer, it's a dismissal. It does not address any concerns raised or present any arguable points, it simply sidesteps the whole issue. It's not helpful and it's not relevant. It might as well be a troll response.

There's more to discuss here than "I don't like the item" or "I like the item", there's the whys and the impact the item has on the game and on a particular character, and the ideas of how it could be better handled and why it was handled the way it was. Frankly, to dismiss all of that with a simple "don't use it if you don't like it" is a tad insulting.

[Shaofoo]

Again, it is the only guideline given for starting players out beyond the first tier. You call it a suggestion, but it's the only one; if you choose to ignore it then you're on your own. And we cannot just cherry-pick the "low magic" side, because perhaps someone does want to run a high magic campaign but is concerned over the power level of some items over the others--if anything, it's more of a problem then, because magic items will be expected and more common but can possibly break the game (and no, that's not the point of magic items, at least not to everyone)! It's a perfectly legitimate discussion to figure out which magic items might be a problem and why they are a problem.

The DMG is a book full of suggestions and the book clearly says that it is a suggestion. Also the DMG came after the PHB so basically you were on your own before the DMG came around if you wanted a higher level character.

Also middle magic item games says to not give a magic item till level 11 either (you get two though) and you get a magic item at level 5 in a high level game. Also I would like to point out that just because you follow the guidelines you also have full control over what items to give your higher level players, the book doesn't say to give the DMG and have them flip through the pages. Even if you HAVE to give magic items you have full control over what magic items to give out, the player never has any agency unless you give that agency. Magic items might be expected but you are still the one in control.

You can discuss which items will cause a problem (and I did say that such stat up items DO cause problems) but if you are going to actually call it a strike against a game I will remind you that you are over exaggerating something that isn't a problem with the game until you actually put it into the game.

"If you don't like it, don't use it" is not an answer, it's a dismissal. It does not address any concerns raised or present any arguable points, it simply sidesteps the whole issue. It's not helpful and it's not relevant. It might as well be a troll response.

Well then, if you don't like it then why use it? Especially when the book says don't like it don't use it. It isn't my words it is what the book says. It isn't a troll response if the book basically says that unless you think the book is trolling you.

There's more to discuss here than "I don't like the item" or "I like the item", there's the whys and the impact the item has on the game and on a particular character, and the ideas of how it could be better handled and why it was handled the way it was. Frankly, to dismiss all of that with a simple "don't use it if you don't like it" is a tad insulting.

Right now the discussion seems to mostly stem of envy and what if another player gets jealous over someone else getting an item and supposedly invalidating their character . This seems to be less of a mechanics problem and more of a social problem. I don't think D&D can and should fix the problem of people getting envious over other people. Quite frankly I play D&D to have fun, not to have to live out an after school special on the importance of sharing, if removing magic items stops such problems then I am all for it. Maybe you have more tolerance than me about dealing with people so I congratulate you if that is true.

[Segev]

This is incorrect. It's not possible to determine whether or not boost strength is suboptimal until you first specify what you are optimizing to do. Someone optimizing for a different task will evaluate the choices differently.

True! But it is fairly safe to assume that your goal is probably to be effective in your class and do more with what your class provides.

If you are changing that baseline assumption by optimizing for a totally different thing, then yes, the analysis must also change to reflect the new reward function.

I do believe "be better at what your class's main feature is" is a valid baseline assumption. And since we started by talking about strength items, "combat" seems a good focus.

You are subjectively worse off. It's not objective because there is no objective way to compare the value of a stat bonus versus a feat. All you can say is that one choice is less fun for you. That's certainly a valid opinion, but it is just an opinion. You're mistaking your subjectively preference for an objective superiority that simply doesn't exist.

There are a number of objective ways. The one I am using may not be the "best," but it is definitely valid: you can take one or the other with the same resource. Unless you're stating that this aspect of the game is woefully unbalanced, such that you can say for certain that one choice or the other is, in a vacuum and independent of any other happenstance, obviously superior, then it must be assumed that the design intent was for the two to be roughly equivalent in value.

Therefore, if you can achieve the same end stat value AND have feats, you are better off than if you have just the end stat value. But if you can only have a stat value OR a feat, you're equally well-off regardless of which you choose.

Your argument is only valid if you don't particularly care whether you take a stat boost or a feat.

And yet, if you care so much more about the stat boost, you actively are getting less out of it should you get the item in the future. By caring more, you've made the item that gives you what you want worth less.

If is doesn't make any difference to you whether you take a stat boost or a feat, why get upset that there's a small chance of getting a magic item that makes one of those choices better? If you do have a strong preference, then you're absolutely better off choosing that, regardless of whether or not certain items might someday appear. Otherwise, you're denying yourself the certainty of a large benefit now for a very small chance of the same benefit later.

I've given the analysis of this already. But I will try to break your paragraph down case by case:

Case 1: You care about strength, invest strongly in strength, and do not get the item.
In this case, you have gotten the best strength you can (20)! Good for you.

Case 2: You care about strength, invest strongly in strength, and do get the item.
Well, on the up side, your strength is higher than it could otherwise be. On the down side, all that investment is somewhat wasted, as you could be just as strong without it. Still, you're strong, so at least you got what you want, even if you overpaid for it!

Case 3: You care about strength, invest strongly in feats, and do not get the item.
Woops. You're not as strong as you could be, which is disappointing. At least you've got some feats to make up for it; they will let you do some things strength-related better, at least (assuming you chose feats that were remotely complementary to your goal).

Case 4: You care about strength, invest strongly in feats, and do get the item.
Huzzah! You win the jackpot: you have all the strength you could possibly get, and you have feats to make it even better! (Again, assuming you chose feats to complement your goal.)

Case 5: You don't care about strength, invest strongly in strength, and do not get the item.
Well, you're very strong, as strong as you could be, but don't really care about that. You'd probably have been happier with feats.

Case 6: You don't care about strength, invest strongly in strength, and do get the item.
Woops. Not only have you wasted all the investment into strength, since this item overwrites it, but you're not even all that thrilled about the item. Definitely made the wrong build choice.

Case 7: You don't care about strength, invest strongly in feats, and do not get the item.
You got feats! And don't really care that you're not all that strong. Happy you!

Case 8: You don't care about strength, invest strongly in feats, and do get the item.
Jackpot here, too! You have the feats you want and strength you don't care much about, but hey, it's still nice!


Obviously, Cases 4 and 8 are the "jackpot" scenarios. Cases 3, 5 and 6 are "loser" scenarios. Case 2 is a mildly frustrating scenario. Cases 1 and 7 are acceptable.

The only unknown is whether or not you get the item. The choice is whether or not you invest in strength or feats.

Cases 1 & 2 are an "acceptable" and "mildly frustrating" scenario. Their analogues, Cases 3 and 4, are "loser" and "jackpot" scenarios. So, it seems that yes, if you particularly value strength, your conservative bet is to go with "invest strongly in strength." You will have acceptable to mildly frustrating results, and the mildly frustrating one is objectively no worse than the acceptable one.

Cases 5&6 are BOTH "loser" scenarios. Their analogues, Cases 7 and 8, are "jackpot" and acceptable scenarios.

If you do not PARTICULARLY value strength, then, you should always invest in feats, because you will always wind up in "loser" scenarios if you invest in strength, and wind up with either "acceptable" or "jackpot" if you invest in feats.

So, this seems like you're right; it's a matter of priorities. But it is telling, I think, that the most optimal choice if you particularly value strength is the one where actually getting the item that increases strength is "mildly frustrating" or just a wash with what you would have gotten if you hadn't invested in it.

That is why this is a flawed design model. If you build for what you value, and the item gives you what you value, the item actively invalidates your investment in it. I won't say you hope not to get it if you invest in strength, but you will wish you hadn't if you do get it. At least, if you appreciate the opportunity costs you paid at all.

People are passionate because of the fallacy of treating a single scenario as the end all scenario that defines the game past, present and future. Getting the Belt is the only thing that matters and nothing in the past or future will matter even if down the line the other player gets something else that will upset the balance for the first player in the process that is irrelevant.

This is a demonstrably incorrect analysis. As long as feats and strength (or whatever stat) are considered equally valuable, your ongoing utility as you pick one vs. the other is increasing the same either way, until you get the item. If you never get it, it's a wash. If you do get it, going feats suddenly yields a significantly higher utility function at the end, with no diminishment to the intermittent utilities.

This distorts if you strongly value strength. If you value strength sufficiently, it will be the optimal choice at each point you can pick it...unless and until you get the item. The utility function over time is harder to analyze, here, but the weird thing is that valuing strength makes the utility of GETTING the item worse, overall. This is...not a good thing.

[krugaan]

That was more providing a reason why people might be passionate about it. I personally love the items, as they're great for my off-stats!

Seriously. The case could be made for making all =19 items =17 instead, but the end result is still largely the same.

[Shaofoo]

This is a demonstrably incorrect analysis. As long as feats and strength (or whatever stat) are considered equally valuable, your ongoing utility as you pick one vs. the other is increasing the same either way, until you get the item. If you never get it, it's a wash. If you do get it, going feats suddenly yields a significantly higher utility function at the end, with no diminishment to the intermittent utilities.

You are committing a fallacy, your argument is over something that you as a player should never ever learn. Getting items should never be a concern because as a player you have no knowledge about such an event. You can have the item or you cannot, it is all moot because it isn't up to you whether the item exists in the first place and if the item doesn't exist then there is no problem at all.

If this is all a roundabout way of saying that the Belts are broken then just remove them from your mind and never deal with them in your games. There are items that are a hassle to deal with but the game never expects any magic items at all, if you put in a problematic magic item in your games you are the one to blame when problems arise.

This distorts if you strongly value strength. If you value strength sufficiently, it will be the optimal choice at each point you can pick it...unless and until you get the item. The utility function over time is harder to analyze, here, but the weird thing is that valuing strength makes the utility of GETTING the item worse, overall. This is...not a good thing.

And again this goes back to this being a social problem. If the player is going to belly ache because the item could've let him dump his str for feats that is a problem with the player not the game. I can just as easy say that a Polearm focused player is mad because the DM put a magic short sword instead of a magic polearm. Or that the fighter is mad because the DM put a magic shield as part of the loot.

There are a ton of magic items that the fighter either isn't optimal or may never use at all. And you never consider that maybe the fighter will get something down the line.

[Segev]

You are committing a fallacy, your argument is over something that you as a player should never ever learn. Getting items should never be a concern because as a player you have no knowledge about such an event. You can have the item or you cannot, it is all moot because it isn't up to you whether the item exists in the first place and if the item doesn't exist then there is no problem at all.

If this is all a roundabout way of saying that the Belts are broken then just remove them from your mind and never deal with them in your games. There are items that are a hassle to deal with but the game never expects any magic items at all, if you put in a problematic magic item in your games you are the one to blame when problems arise.



And again this goes back to this being a social problem. If the player is going to belly ache because the item could've let him dump his str for feats that is a problem with the player not the game. I can just as easy say that a Polearm focused player is mad because the DM put a magic short sword instead of a magic polearm. Or that the fighter is mad because the DM put a magic shield as part of the loot.

There are a ton of magic items that the fighter either isn't optimal or may never use at all. And you never consider that maybe the fighter will get something down the line.

All of this is no different than saying, "Well, if it's broken, don't play it," and "Don't complain that the game makes the optimal choice not the one you want to play."

It's not useful. It doesn't change that the design is poor. The only reason this is seeming so "big" in this thread is that people keep jumping all over me for daring to mention it's a problem that exists, and then telling me that it can't possibly exist because only bad munchkin roll-players with (implied) entitlement complexes would care.

The fact is that it is demonstrable through game theory analysis that these items do not reward what they seem to, but in fact reward the exact opposite. They punish what would be a natural assumption in your build procedure by either invalidating it or by giving better than what you worked for to somebody else.

You're right: DMs can choose to leave it out. And if the DM tells the players that they just won't exist from the beginning, that clears up any consideration one way or the other. If he leaves it vague, if it's a "maybe," then it still poses this problem.

It's not a game-ending problem. It's just a problem. A problem that could be solved with better design. Not all problems must be critical, game-wrecking problems to be worthy of considering how to design things to mitigate or avoid them.

[Shaofoo]

All of this is no different than saying, "Well, if it's broken, don't play it," and "Don't complain that the game makes the optimal choice not the one you want to play."

The first one is exactly what I am saying. The game doesn't expect you to use the items so it isn't a problem to ignore it.

And the second one should only matter if you ever care about the optimal choice, if you don't then that shouldn't be a problem. It is only a problem when the choice is the exact opposite of what you want it to happen (which it doesn't)

It's not useful. It doesn't change that the design is poor. The only reason this is seeming so "big" in this thread is that people keep jumping all over me for daring to mention it's a problem that exists, and then telling me that it can't possibly exist because only bad munchkin roll-players with (implied) entitlement complexes would care.

Like I said, it only exists when you put the item in play, otherwise all problems are null because they never existed. It is bad design but it isn't a problem since you can just as easily ignore it.

And yes I would argue that such players who care about minmaxing are the only ones affected and I wouldn't care if such players with entitlement issues are mad. Because you are making choices that at no point were guaranteed to you. You might as well say that you wish you were a paladin instead of a fighter so you can wield the Holy Avenger that you found.

The fact is that it is demonstrable through game theory analysis that these items do not reward what they seem to, but in fact reward the exact opposite. They punish what would be a natural assumption in your build procedure by either invalidating it or by giving better than what you worked for to somebody else.

And like I said, such think doesn't concern me because it is the thoughts of someone wanting to be the best above all others and if at one point they aren't the best then they would rather ragequit. And like I said it ignores the fact that maybe down the line they will get something that they can use. You might as well say that the Cleric wants to ragequit because the bard suddenly got a staff of healing and can now heal as well.
Also what is your consideration of cursed items, items with obvious downsides, do you consider a DM a bad DM if he gives you an item that actually was a negative instead of a positive.

You're right: DMs can choose to leave it out. And if the DM tells the players that they just won't exist from the beginning, that clears up any consideration one way or the other. If he leaves it vague, if it's a "maybe," then it still poses this problem.

Correction, the DM is under no obligation to tell their players what is or isn't in his game. A player should assume nothing is in the game until the DM tells them something is in the game. It is your fault if you have expectations for items that are never ever guaranteed.

It's not a game-ending problem. It's just a problem. A problem that could be solved with better design. Not all problems must be critical, game-wrecking problems to be worthy of considering how to design things to mitigate or avoid them.

It is only a problem when the item exists, if it doesn't then it isn't a problem and since as a DM you can easily say no to the item then if the item doesn't exist then it continues not being a problem. Besides like I said there are other items that exist that deal with stat up like the ioun stones so maybe your analysis is already resolved by the book itself instead of just trying to hammer on a problem that shouldn't exist if you don't want to deal with it.

[Segev]

In short, you agree that the item is a bad idea to include in games. Okay!

My additional point, moving on from there, is that having items which improve stats is cool. There should be ones that do not result in "broken, don't use it" as the conclusion.

As a refinement of what I was thinking before:

The wearer of Gauntlets of Ogre Strength has advantage on all Strength checks. If he would have advantage from another source on such a check, he may roll a third d20. If he uses the third d20 instead of one of the other two, he calculates his bonus as if he had Strength 19. He also has a minimum Strength of 19 for purposes of calculating static values.


That reduces the "overwritten" aspects to a barely-noticeable level and makes the item significant no matter who wears them.

The Belt of Hill Giant Strength would read "as Gauntlets of Ogre Strength, save they use a strength of 22," and the other kinds of Giant belts would similarly substitute different strength scores.

Same for any other relevant stat-up items.

[krugaan]

In short, you agree that the item is a bad idea to include in games. Okay!

My additional point, moving on from there, is that having items which improve stats is cool. There should be ones that do not result in "broken, don't use it" as the conclusion.

As a refinement of what I was thinking before:

The wearer of Gauntlets of Ogre Strength has advantage on all Strength checks. If he would have advantage from another source on such a check, he may roll a third d20. If he uses the third d20 instead of one of the other two, he calculates his bonus as if he had Strength 19. He also has a minimum Strength of 19 for purposes of calculating static values.


That reduces the "overwritten" aspects to a barely-noticeable level and makes the item significant no matter who wears them.

The Belt of Hill Giant Strength would read "as Gauntlets of Ogre Strength, save they use a strength of 22," and the other kinds of Giant belts would similarly substitute different strength scores.

Same for any other relevant stat-up items.

That's really very complicated for a magic item. 5E is about simplicity (for the most part). It's a neat idea though.

[Segev]

That's really very complicated for a magic item. 5E is about simplicity (for the most part). It's a neat idea though.

Hm. How about:

If you fail a Strength check for any reason while wearing Gauntlets of Ogre Strength, you may re-roll it, treating your Strength score as 19. You must take the new result. Your Strength is treated as no less than 19 for any static calculations.

Or reword that last bit for better "fit" with 5e vernacular; the idea being that 19 is a "floor" on your strength for static value purposes. (This would include any stat damage failing to bring you below 19. ...actually, is stat damage even still a thing in 5e?)

[krugaan]

Hm. How about:

If you fail a Strength check for any reason while wearing Gauntlets of Ogre Strength, you may re-roll it, treating your Strength score as 19. You must take the new result. Your Strength is treated as no less than 19 for any static calculations.

Or reword that last bit for better "fit" with 5e vernacular; the idea being that 19 is a "floor" on your strength for static value purposes. (This would include any stat damage failing to bring you below 19. ...actually, is stat damage even still a thing in 5e?)

or I dunno, just advantage on strength checks and +1 to hit and damage?

As mentioned before, the "set at 19" part is kind of iconic. Also, "static calculations" means involving stats?

[Segev]

As mentioned before, the "set at 19" part is kind of iconic.

I agree; it is. Thematically, I like it. I'm trying to preserve it while at least mitigating the problem I spent the last several pages elaborating upon.

Also, "static calculations" means involving stats?

Mostly relevant to strength, I think; I was thinking about things like "how much can you carry?" Though I suppose it'd be relevant for passive checks, too.

[CantigThimble]

Eh, I think a much better solution than either of those is just not giving the items to players unless they will be appreciated. Using 19 strength exclusively for non-combat things is just so lackluster and janky.

[Segev]

Eh, I think a much better solution than either of those is just not giving the items to players unless they will be appreciated. Using 19 strength exclusively for non-combat things is just so lackluster and janky.

You also use it as a fallback.

Though you're right, as I wrote it, it wouldn't apply to attack rolls and damage, and that's a problem. Woops. I'll give it more thought.

[Ruslan]

Gauntlets of Ogre Strength [requires attunement]
If you fail a Strength check or save, or miss with a Strength-based attack while wearing those gauntlets, you may expend a charge to reroll that check, save or attack. For the purpose of the new roll, treat your Strength score as 19.
Gauntlets of Ogre Strength have 4 charges, and regain 1d3 charges each day at dawn.

[Vogonjeltz]

Indeed. Why WOULD you boost strength? The optimal action is to never do so, except possibly as a side-consequence of a feat which also does so (if you want that feat's other features). It is bad design to create options where one is OBJECTIVELY worse than the other, especially if the reason it's worse is hidden behind another book and/or unknowns that you have to study more deeply to even appreciate the possibility of. These are known as "trap" options.

I guess I don't understand your position. Are you saying that the hope of a less than stat maximum boosting magic item is objectively better than having the maximum in your primary stat?

I mean...given that characters use their primary stat in virtually every game session more than anything else, and the item in question is incapable of helping the character to maximize their potential...you're objectively wrong about this claim.

The idea of trap options isn't accurate in that magic items aren't options. You don't get to choose what magic items the party finds, it's random. There is no choice involved. As such, I think you've seriously misjudged the purpose of stat 19 items. You might want to consider re-aligning your expectations to fit the situation, rather than railing against the situation for not fitting your expectations.

[georgie_leech]

or I dunno, just advantage on strength checks and +1 to hit and damage?

As mentioned before, the "set at 19" part is kind of iconic. Also, "static calculations" means involving stats?

Worth noting that in the edition that set the stats to specific values, you had considerably less control over what your stats were and changing them in game wasn't a guarantee; you didn't gain Ability Scores just for leveling like you do now. I other words, Gauntlets of Ogre Power were one of the primary ways to invest in STR in the first place, rather than competing with standard level ups.

[JoeJ]

True! But it is fairly safe to assume that your goal is probably to be effective in your class and do more with what your class provides.

If you are changing that baseline assumption by optimizing for a totally different thing, then yes, the analysis must also change to reflect the new reward function.

I do believe "be better at what your class's main feature is" is a valid baseline assumption. And since we started by talking about strength items, "combat" seems a good focus.

Sorry, but no. "Being better at your class's main feature" is far, far too broad to be a meaningful optimization target. The number of definitions of what it means to be "best" at a class's main feature approaches infinity. Being better at doing damage to targets with low AC and high hp is an example of a useful optimization target. Or being better at tripping. Or better at sneaking. Or better at casting damaging spells that have attack rolls.

TThere are a number of objective ways. The one I am using may not be the "best," but it is definitely valid: you can take one or the other with the same resource. Unless you're stating that this aspect of the game is woefully unbalanced, such that you can say for certain that one choice or the other is, in a vacuum and independent of any other happenstance, obviously superior, then it must be assumed that the design intent was for the two to be roughly equivalent in value.

That's meaningless. In a vacuum and independent of any other happenstance, neither the stat boost nor the feat has any value whatsoever. Each is only good for doing specific things; how valuable they are depends on how badly you want to do those things.

TTherefore, if you can achieve the same end stat value AND have feats, you are better off than if you have just the end stat value. But if you can only have a stat value OR a feat, you're equally well-off regardless of which you choose.

That's true only if all you care about is your character's stats at the moment the campaign ends. If what you want is to play the strong character, then you're absolutely not better off taking the feats, whether you eventually get a >20 item or not.

TAnd yet, if you care so much more about the stat boost, you actively are getting less out of it should you get the item in the future. By caring more, you've made the item that gives you what you want worth less.
<snip for length>

The difficulty with your analysis is that it only looks at endpoints. If you value strength, build for feats, and end up getting a Belt of Strength, that's not a jackpot. That's completely sub-optimal because you wasted all those levels not being strong.

You're also ignoring the possibility that the choices you make might influence what magic items you find. As a DM, I would be far more likely to give a Belt of Giant Strength to a character who was already building for strength and having fun being the strongest character in the room, because that's the kind of character they appear to want to play.

TThis is a demonstrably incorrect analysis. As long as feats and strength (or whatever stat) are considered equally valuable, your ongoing utility as you pick one vs. the other is increasing the same either way, until you get the item. If you never get it, it's a wash. If you do get it, going feats suddenly yields a significantly higher utility function at the end, with no diminishment to the intermittent utilities.

No. Your analysis is incorrect because you're taking a choice that is supposed to be balanced on average and assuming it's equally balanced for any specific case.

This distorts if you strongly value strength. If you value strength sufficiently, it will be the optimal choice at each point you can pick it...unless and until you get the item. The utility function over time is harder to analyze, here, but the weird thing is that valuing strength makes the utility of GETTING the item worse, overall. This is...not a good thing.

I think we're just going to have to disagree here.

[georgie_leech]

I think we're just going to have to disagree here.

As a comparison, who gets more out of a theoretical item that gives you access to the spellcasting ability of a Level 17 Wizard if you don't already have that: a level 1 Wizard, or a Level 15?

[Shaofoo]

Quite frankly just copy the effect of the Ioun Stone of Strength.

Gauntlets of Ogre Power - Your Strength Score is increased by 2 up to a max of 20 while you are wearing the gauntlets.

It might not be unique but it is sure much more balanced. Nothing says that you can't have the 3.x version of stat items in your 5e games complete with restrictions to obey the stat cap as well. You can have the belts just give higher bonuses and even some breaking the stat barrier but not beyond 23 (So we don't step on a Barbarian's toes)

[endur]

The set stat to 19 items are for people who don't have a good score in that stat. If you had Gauntlets of Ogre Power, you'd give them to the cleric or thief who might need to hit in melee and cannot have 18/00 Str, rather than the brute of a fighter who only managed 18/77. That's because that fighter wants the gloves of dexterity. So for 5e, the Gauntlets are good for anyone that doesn't normally have room for good Strength.

As a 5e barbarian player who played an AD&D fighter-type in the 1980's, I disagree.

In AD&D, (assuming non-computer game where the player runs only one character), an 18/77 fighter would definitely want the gauntlets if a belt is not available. 18/77 was +2/+4, 18/00 was +3/+6. A +1 to hit and +2 to damage in AD&D was HUGE. There was no weapon specialization. The only way you increased damage was via magic items (swords, etc.) and strength. Also very few buff spells existed back then. Gloves of dex were nice for defense and archery, but a strong offense has always been preferable to defense in D&D.

Also, the gauntlets increased your odds of performing the fighter task of opening doors, bending bars, etc, even allowing a chance to open doors that were sealed by a Hold Portal or Wizard Lock spell.

In 5e, my 7th level Str 16 barbarian has the gauntlets. When I increase my str to 18, I will give the gauntlets to someone else ... but until then, the gauntlets are definitely useful.

In an AD&D computer game like Baldur's Gate, I would definitely give the Gauntlets of Ogre Power to the cleric... The cleric can't get 18/00 strength without the gauntlets (only fighter types get 18 percentile strength).

[MeeposFire]

As a 5e barbarian player who played an AD&D fighter-type in the 1980's, I disagree.

In AD&D, (assuming non-computer game where the player runs only one character), an 18/77 fighter would definitely want the gauntlets if a belt is not available. 18/77 was +2/+4, 18/00 was +3/+6. A +1 to hit and +2 to damage in AD&D was HUGE. There was no weapon specialization. The only way you increased damage was via magic items (swords, etc.) and strength. Also very few buff spells existed back then. Gloves of dex were nice for defense and archery, but a strong offense has always been preferable to defense in D&D.

Also, the gauntlets increased your odds of performing the fighter task of opening doors, bending bars, etc, even allowing a chance to open doors that were sealed by a Hold Portal or Wizard Lock spell.

In 5e, my 7th level Str 16 barbarian has the gauntlets. When I increase my str to 18, I will give the gauntlets to someone else ... but until then, the gauntlets are definitely useful.

In an AD&D computer game like Baldur's Gate, I would definitely give the Gauntlets of Ogre Power to the cleric... The cleric can't get 18/00 strength without the gauntlets (only fighter types get 18 percentile strength).

You must have only used the older 1e books because weapon specialization was introduced in 1e along with classes like the barbarian. I also would think it strange to say that there were few buff spells as I remember a lot of them especially self buffs on the cleric side.

That being said the important thing I think you are saying I believe I agree with.

Your example of baldurs gate is true too. If I go low str with a character then I really want to use the gauntlets of ogre power. If I had high str I did not need and I would give them to a different character but my high str character would benefit because he could use gauntlets of weapon expertise which gives me bonuses that stack with all my other bonuses.

[krugaan]

Quite frankly just copy the effect of the Ioun Stone of Strength.

Gauntlets of Ogre Power - Your Strength Score is increased by 2 up to a max of 20 while you are wearing the gauntlets.

It might not be unique but it is sure much more balanced. Nothing says that you can't have the 3.x version of stat items in your 5e games complete with restrictions to obey the stat cap as well. You can have the belts just give higher bonuses and even some breaking the stat barrier but not beyond 23 (So we don't step on a Barbarian's toes)

How about:

Sets your Str 19. If your natural Str is 19+, it adds +2 str.

Some benefit to high str characters, same benefit to low str characters, functionally different from other magical items, and simple.

[Shaofoo]

How about:

Sets your Str 19. If your natural Str is 19+, it adds +2 str.

Some benefit to high str characters, same benefit to low str characters, functionally different from other magical items, and simple.

This makes the item even more broken.

The point isn't to make the item usable for everyone the point is to make the item not supposedly invalidate choices that other players make. Basically the set to 19 has to go and never be used at all no matter what.

Like I said, not all items should be useable or optimal for everyone. D&D is a group game so unless everyone is a Str based character there is probably some character who can use it to good effect even if it is to get better skill checks. Like I said a lot of people seem to stem from the premise that the Gauntlets is the only item to be given to the group and that nothing that can happen in the future. Basically the Fighter should just give the Gauntlets to someone else and just wait for the next item drop to be more agreeable to him, or just try to sell or barter with the gauntlets.

[JoeJ]

As a comparison, who gets more out of a theoretical item that gives you access to the spellcasting ability of a Level 17 Wizard if you don't already have that: a level 1 Wizard, or a Level 15?

For that (totally not broken) item, the analogous question would be, who gets more out of it: a 15th level wizard or a 15th level barbarian who has little or no desire to cast spells?

[CantigThimble]

For that (totally not broken) item, the analogous question would be, who gets more out of it: a 15th level wizard or a 15th level barbarian who has little or no desire to cast spells?

The answer is still very clearly the 15th level barbarian unless he has an extreme magic allergy.

[JoeJ]

The answer is still very clearly the 15th level barbarian unless he has an extreme magic allergy.

The wizard gets a "Wow! Awesome!" and the barbarian gets a "Meh, I'll see if I can sell it in town." How is that better?

[CantigThimble]

The wizard gets a "Wow! Awesome!" and the barbarian gets a "Meh, I'll see if I can sell it in town." How is that better?

Are you kidding?
-Foresight.
-Fly when you needs it
-Shield & Haste when you're not spending a rage
-Cone of Cold when you're faced by large numbers
-Teleportation
-Fabricate fortifications

There are so many situations in which being really strong and hitting something in melee can't solve the problem that the item would allow him to deal with.

If the wizard takes the item then the net gain for the party is what, 1 spell slot per day? If the barbarian takes it the party gains 19 spell slots every day!