Which Magic items really shouldn't require concentration?

[CheddarChampion]

I was making a table of magic items to roll on and saw bracers of defense. +2 AC when otherwise unarmored is nice, but compared to other magic items that require attunement? No thanks.

Even if I were a Monk or Barbarian I'd prefer a Ring of Evasion, a Ring of Protection, a Ring of Free Action, Boots of Speed, a Flametongue, a Belt of Hill Giant Strength...

In your view, which magic items should not require attunement?

[Lord Vukodlak]

I was making a table of magic items to roll on and saw bracers of defense. +2 AC when otherwise unarmored is nice, but compared to other magic items that require attunement? No thanks.

Even if I were a Monk or Barbarian I'd prefer a Ring of Evasion, a Ring of Protection, a Ring of Free Action, Boots of Speed, a Flametongue, a Belt of Hill Giant Strength...

You forgot to mention wizards and sorcerers. Having mage armor up does not count as "wearing armor" nor does Draconic Resilience.
Ring/Cloak of Protection grants +1 to AC and Saves why wouldn't and item that grants +2 to AC also require attunment? The fact only a limited number of classes benefit is irrelevant, by that logic an "Instrument of the Bard" shouldn't require attunment because only bards can use them.
When my monk had the choice between acquiring bracers of defense and boots of speed he choose bracers of defense. Bounded accuracy makes AC extremely valuable and classes that forgo armor and shields have few ways to increase it. I was already had speed and most fights were indoors anyway so the AC really helped.

[sithlordnergal]

Personally, I agree with you that it shouldn't be attunement. Its basically no different from a regular shield, and considering that the only classes using it will have terrible AC anyway, there's really no harm in making it non-attunement.

As for other items, I'd need to take a look. I tend to skip over a lot of items that I don't find impressive. One item I do believe shouldn't be attunement is the Staff of the Python.

Its not a very strong item in and of itself, and it can easily be destroyed. I had one once on a Druid, but was always too afraid to use it because I didn't want it to be destroyed. In the end I eventually tossed the staff for a Staff of the Woodlands, which was far superior, having never actually used the Staff of the Python even once.

[Democratus]

A lot depends on the game world and how common magic items are.

5e base assumption is no magic shops. So you wouldn't exactly be able to pick and choose.

I've yet to play a 5e campaign where each character had more than 3 total non-consumable magic items.

[CheddarChampion]

You forgot to mention wizards and sorcerers. Having mage armor up does not count as "wearing armor" nor does Draconic Resilience.
Ring/Cloak of Protection grants +1 to AC and Saves why wouldn't and item that grants +2 to AC also require attunment? The fact only a limited number of classes benefit is irrelevant, by that logic an "Instrument of the Bard" shouldn't require attunment because only bards can use them.
When my monk had the choice between acquiring bracers of defense and boots of speed he choose bracers of defense. Bounded accuracy makes AC extremely valuable and classes that forgo armor and shields have few ways to increase it. I was already had speed and most fights were indoors anyway so the AC really helped.

OK yes, Mage Armor/Draconic Resilience + Bracers would be good. But so would shield proficiency.
The Ring of Protection allows you to wear armor and still use it. Better for your everyday barbarian.
IMO a monk is better at being hard to pin down than they are at AC tanking. Your priority is not giving your enemies a chance to attack you. Boots of Speed/Ring of Free Action help you do that better.
If you get attacked 10% less thanks to your item then the BoS/RoFA win out just a bit thanks to avoiding more crits and potential utility. If you get attacked even less than that thanks to them, BoD is less useful comparatively.

I doubt we can convince each other... which magic items would you remove the concentration requirement from?


A lot depends on the game world and how common magic items are.

5e base assumption is no magic shops. So you wouldn't exactly be able to pick and choose.

I've yet to play a 5e campaign where each character had more than 3 total non-consumable magic items.

Not in a magic shop way, in a "I wish my DM gave me one of these instead" way.
If you find Bracers of Defense you pick them up. But if you find Bracers and Defense and another Rare magic item that requires attunement, you'll probably prioritize the second item.
Another way I think about it: if no one in the party is a bard but the DM keeps handing out instruments of the bards and nothing else... that's not particularly fun. If no one in the party benefits much from a particular magic item, maybe the DM should give them something else.


One item I do believe shouldn't be attunement is the Staff of the Python.

At low levels it holds up pretty well. But afterwards... yeah.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I doubt we can convince each other... which magic items would you remove the attunment requirement from?
Brooch of Shielding, force damage is incredibly rare and magic missiles isn't exactly an incredible threat. The only time I'd attune to that item is if I knew i was going to fight a beholder. Hell in one group we found a brooch of shielding and even the character who had an empty slot didn't think it was worth the bother of tracking it on his character sheet.

Also the Talisman of the Sphere because the sphere of annihilation is such a pathetic item now a days. The Ring of Mind Shielding is also of extremely limited use. The "Armblade" which all it does is allow a war-forged a concealed magic weapon. Which is simply a magic weapon with no bonuses aside from overcoming damage resistances.

One thing I'd add attunment too is those amulets used to control a Shield Guardians.

Now I'm actually in favor of trying a house rule that limits attunment to your proficiency mod. So the limit would start at 2 and go up to 6

On the Staff of the Python
[quote]At low levels it holds up pretty well. But afterwards... yeah. [quote]
One thing to remember about any item that doesn't require attunment is what if the PC's acquire multiple. So long as you never let the PC's have more then one its fine to leave off attunment. By the time you have enough magic items that NO one in the party has an empty attunment slot the constrictor can't do to much. But two or three is a different story.