Talk:Magic Sweet Box (5e Equipment)

I think I've fixed up the balance issues. It's still strong, but no longer completely outside the realm of other items. I wanted to use something similar to this in my campaign, but it was clearly absurd, so I brought it into line while trying to maintain the author's general intent. Feel free to make any additional tweaks you think it needs, but I don't think it still requires deletion. -Pharoic

It is certainly a step in the right direction, but the permanent increases are no bueno (not good if you habla espanol). Very rare, the bonuses could be temporary instead, not to exceed 20? Just giving ideas. Not 100% sure. Red Leg Leo (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2020 (MST)

I've updated to include the cap of 20, that was an oversight the first time through. I'm mentally comparing it to the Tome of Clear Thought et al, drawing the rarity from that. It could be bumped up to legendary I suppose? -Pharoic

At a minimum this is a +3 ASI vs the +2 ASI. This could give +9 ASI. Even with the "drawbacks" it is still stronger than official content. I usually try to offer advice but I am bias this item shouldn't exist. It is redundant and 5e items typically bring player choice to the table. This simply boosts ability score. Red Leg Leo (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2020 (MST)

how about having increasing worse problems the more sweets eaten. for example - chocolate: 1) 10' move slower 2) an additional 10' move slower etc. orange gummi: 1) dex check disadvantage 2) can only use huge weapons 3) breaks almost any mundane item they touch etc. raspberry: 1) charisma disadvantage 2) heat and cold vulnerability 3) ravenous appetite etc. Arquebus (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2020 (MST)

I would reckon it follows the same guidelines as creating races; negatives don't balance benefits. Most players are willing to accept the drawbacks and it creates characters with less flavor as they pigeon hole themselves into a specific way to play. Red Leg Leo (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2020 (MST)

Good points all around, here's a thought. What if each character could only benefit from the effect of one of the sweets? So even if you got lucky and got 9 sweets, it would only be a +1 ASI to each member of the party, and not on a stat they already have at 20. That way it would serve the function of "Sharing a box of powerful magical sweets" with the party, without breaking characters. If someone ate more than one, whichever one they ate most recently would take effect, negating the previous one. Pharoic (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2020 (MST)

Even if you are only limited to +1 ASI each, the item still should not permanently increase ability scores by more than +2. Personally, I believe that limiting a sweet's effect so it only lasts for 24 hours and adding a lot more types of magical sweets would make this item more interesting for players to use while also being more balanced since we don't have to worry about a permanent ABI. Specifically, adding sweets for Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma and even sweets that give other temporary things like immunity to a condition, water breathing, temporary hit points, resistance to a damage type, ect. can make this item a lot more useful in a variety of situations.--Blobby383b (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2020 (MST) - I like this answer. Arquebus (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2020 (MST)

I would agree, and at that point we have reskinned potions and their durations. Red Leg Leo (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2020 (MST)

I don't believe that having an item that is effectively a potion set is a bad thing mainly for the reasons I have stated above. With that said, I am not against doing something else if there are other ideas that could potentially work as although the item would be made to be more useful, my idea is indeed a bit dull.--Blobby383b (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2020 (MST)