Is there a better way of limiting magic items than attunement? [Archive]

Greywander

2022-02-03, 03:47 PM

Unoriginal

2022-02-03, 04:04 PM

Is there some actual in-universe limit that only allows one to attune to three items

Yes?

Some magic items require a creature to form a bond with them before their magical properties can be used. This bond is called attunement, and certain items have a prerequisite for it

[...]

Attuning to an item requires a creature to spend a Short Rest focused on only that item while being in physical contact with it (this can’t be the same short rest used to learn the item’s properties). This focus can take the form of weapon practice (for a weapon), meditation (for a wondrous item), or some other appropriate activity. If the Short Rest is interrupted, the attunement attempt fails. Otherwise, at the end of the Short Rest, the creature gains an intuitive understanding of how to activate any magical properties of the item, including any necessary Command words.

An item can be attuned to only one creature at a time, and a creature can be attuned to no more than three magic items at a time. Any attempt to attune to a fourth item fails; the creature must end its attunement to an item first. Additionally, a creature can’t attune to more than one copy of an item. For example, a creature can’t attune to more than one ring of Protection at a time.

Three is the natural limit of how many attunement a single creature can have, same way that one is the natural limit of how many 9th level spell slot a spellcaster can have. And like the 9th-level-spell-slot-limit, some rare persons do break the attunement limit. Among them are lvl 10+ Artificers, who have (if you pardon the pun) "be more in tune with magic items than anyone else" as part of their class pitch, and Jarlaxle Baenre, who is bull manure like that.

Second, it artificially limits certain loadouts. The biggest offender is anyone attuning to more than one weapon. Unless you're using TWF, you can only use one weapon at a time anyway, and TWF is bad enough as it is without this additional handicap. You're far better off only attuning to your favorite weapon and then using your two remaining slots on other items, like a Cloak of Displacement or Protection or something. A lot of less rare magic items also fall by the wayside as they get overshadowed by stronger items later on.

That's a feature, not a bug. One may not like the feature, sure, but it works as intended (note that there is no guarantee you're getting stronger items later on, or at least stronger items that are in the same category).

Now, there are some tweaks to the attunement system that could ameliorate the second issue. One is to use one combined slot for all weapon attunements. So if you attune to one weapon, then you can attune to any number of other weapons without it costing you any additional slots. Another tweak might be to gain special attunement slots as you level up that can only attune to items of a specific rarity or lower. So you might, for example, have two or three slots that can only be used for Uncommon items, and one slot for a Rare item, allowing you to still make use of those items even at higher levels. You might even get infinite attunement slots for certain levels of rarity (Common being the one that needs it the most; I'd be cautious giving unlimited attunement to Uncommon items).

You could say that everyone got 21 attunement slots, and that Common items take 1 slot, Uncommon ones take 3, Rare ones take 6, Very Rare ones take 9 and Legendary ones take 12.

Dork_Forge

2022-02-03, 04:08 PM

Attunement is a game mechanic, this isn't a video game but it is still a game, so I'm not following your logic there.

If you want a narrative thing: Your body/mind can only sustain a connection to three magical items, your desperation doesn't matter, it's a limit of you as a mortal. If you want more attunement then you either need a DM boon or you need a special relationship with magic items: be an Artificer.

I also don't understand your complaint to be honest, you're talking like all magic items require attunement. A TWF can use +x magic weapons without any attunement commitment, a lot of wands don't need attunement, some great items like the cloak of the Mountebank also don't.

If all items required attunement I'd understand this more, as it is, attunement exists to limit power through items to some degree, and create interesting choice for players rather than just use them all.

The big difference of this not being a video game is that the DM is free to adjust to taste, I use additional attunement slots as boons/rewards. Players feel good and can use some of the item build-up, but their growth in power is relatively minimal.

Psyren

2022-02-03, 04:08 PM

I prefer the attunement mechanic to body slots personally, but I wouldn't mind additional ways to bypass it - say a feat that increases your slots, or a way to modify an item so it no longer requires attunement, or multiple versions of an item where the more common one needs it and the rarer one doesn't.

As for justifying the mechanic in-universe, I assume it's tied to limits in the character's soul, or that the process of binding permanent magic to items creates some kind of metaphysical resonance/interference, much like having too many wi-fi devices on the same frequency will cause congestion issues.

5eNeedsDarksun

2022-02-03, 04:11 PM

The only tweak I've made is to allow a 4th attunement in place of concentration. This mostly impacts late game for full martials and can give them some spell like abilities in lieu of dipping caster.

LudicSavant

2022-02-03, 04:13 PM

I know I'm probably preaching to the choir for most of you, but I have a few issues with how attunement works. Thing is, I'm not really sure what a "better" system would look like.

My issues with the attunement system can be broadly split into two categories: First, I don't really understand what attunement is supposed to represent, in-universe. I can accept video game logic that only gives you two ring slots, but this isn't a video game, and I'd like to understand why I can't attune to a fourth item. It just feels too much like a gameplay abstraction that's intruding on the narrative. If I'm in a desperate situation, and I'm offered a fourth magic item, of course my character would want to take all the help they can get, and yet the arbitrary attunement limit doesn't allow them to. So why is my character turning down that fourth item, even though they need it? Is there some actual in-universe limit that only allows one to attune to three items, and if so, why?

Second, it artificially limits certain loadouts. The biggest offender is anyone attuning to more than one weapon. Unless you're using TWF, you can only use one weapon at a time anyway, and TWF is bad enough as it is without this additional handicap. You're far better off only attuning to your favorite weapon and then using your two remaining slots on other items, like a Cloak of Displacement or Protection or something. A lot of less rare magic items also fall by the wayside as they get overshadowed by stronger items later on.

Now, there are some tweaks to the attunement system that could ameliorate the second issue. One is to use one combined slot for all weapon attunements. So if you attune to one weapon, then you can attune to any number of other weapons without it costing you any additional slots. Another tweak might be to gain special attunement slots as you level up that can only attune to items of a specific rarity or lower. So you might, for example, have two or three slots that can only be used for Uncommon items, and one slot for a Rare item, allowing you to still make use of those items even at higher levels. You might even get infinite attunement slots for certain levels of rarity (Common being the one that needs it the most; I'd be cautious giving unlimited attunement to Uncommon items).

However, that's really only a bandaid fix, and it doesn't address the first issue. So far, I haven't been able to come up with a satisfactory alternative, and while simply removing attunement limits might be one option, there is the possibility that it could lead to the very thing attunement was designed to prevent: making a character overpowered via magic item stacking. I could kind of see doing it by equip slot, e.g. you can only wear one hat/helmet or one pair of boots at the same time; rings then become especially useful since you'd be able to equip a lot of them, possibly infinite. I just don't know that the 5e magic system is designed to be accomodated by such a loose limitation. (And this is basically the same as removing attunement anyway.)

Have there been any good proposed alternatives to attunement? Have you ever used an alternative system, and how did it work in practice?

In the Witcher 1, you wouldn't drink too many buff potions because too much magic in your system made interesting bad stuff happen. Magic had a certain toxicity and your body could only tolerate so much of it at a time.

This fluff approach, I think, has some potential in terms of game design options. For example, you could use it to justify characters gaining additional or higher level attunement slots as they level up, or you could use it to justify martial characters (with their trained bodies) being able to wield more magic gear. Suddenly Link really *can* use more gear than the local Wizard -- he's trained his body not to get overwhelmed by all the stuff he's carrying around. It even could be used to justify tying the number of attunement slots to a strength stat if going for designing a game system where all secondary stats would be valuable to all classes. A designer could even do things like, say, remove duration tracking from the game and just tie all long term buffs to attunement, if they were so inclined. Lots of options to play with.

As for the dual-wielding problem, one way this could be addressed would be by making attunement apply to 'passive/worn' stuff, rather than 'wielded' stuff. You already have a natural limitation there -- how many things you can actually manipulate in your hands at once!

D&D 5e's attunement slot system, I think, represents a bit of a missed opportunity. Ideally, it'd naturally corral in magic items so that they wouldn't get entirely out of hand even if the DM isn't tracking how much wealth or loot they give out too closely. But it only does that to a very limited extent, because we still have things that just straight up give you linear scaling (like +1-+3 magic weapons and armor) not taking attunement at all for whatever reason.

KorvinStarmast

2022-02-03, 04:25 PM

If all items required attunement I'd understand this more, as it is, attunement exists to limit power through items to some degree, and create interesting choice for players rather than just use them all. So much this. When my bard was level 18, she had five attunable items but only 3 slots, so she'd switch them in and out depending on where we planned to go.
Tattoo: always attuned. (It gave me darkvision, stealth benefits, 1/2 damage once per day)

Medallion of Non Detection: this was variable. Sometimes, we wanted people to think I wasn't with the party, since we had enough enemies that scried or had spies that we would occasionally want to deceive them. Other times, where we were going wasn't necessary to keep secret (testimony at the dragon council being one) so I attuned a different item in that case ...

Ring of Evasion

MacFurmaidh Cittern: usually attuned, but occasionally not since we had many occasions to do battle with charm immune monsters. In that case

Flame Tongue (borrowed from Hexblade) or
Ioun Stone of Wisdom (which I gave to an ally eventually) was an option.

The process of making those choices, I found, added to the fun.

MoiMagnus

2022-02-03, 04:42 PM

My issues with the attunement system can be broadly split into two categories: First, I don't really understand what attunement is supposed to represent, in-universe.

You're linking your soul to some magical object. Just look at the Warlock's pact weapon, that's basically the same thing. It makes sense for any magical object that rely on some sort of mental decision when you use it. For example, the winged boot probably come with some knowledge on how to use them correctly and not crash at the first use, and attuning to it make using the winged boot "intuitive" to use for its user. It's a little more contrived for some magic items where you really feel like the attunement is only there for balance reasons.

A lot of less rare magic items also fall by the wayside as they get overshadowed by stronger items later on.

I'm pretty sure that's a feature, not a bug. With the exponential price system, getting lower rarity objects is negligible in term of price, so you need a way to make them negligible in term of effect. If having a specific common/uncommon item was objectively better than not having it, then every high level character would have them, and have also a few dozens of other "must-have" magic objects, which start to be a nightmare as it slow down the game (Essentially forcing the complexity of having a huge toolbox to chose from not just on spellcasters, but also on martial characters).

Now, there are some tweaks to the attunement system that could ameliorate the second issue. One is to use one combined slot for all weapon attunements. So if you attune to one weapon, then you can attune to any number of other weapons without it costing you any additional slots. Another tweak might be to gain special attunement slots as you level up that can only attune to items of a specific rarity or lower. So you might, for example, have two or three slots that can only be used for Uncommon items, and one slot for a Rare item, allowing you to still make use of those items even at higher levels. You might even get infinite attunement slots for certain levels of rarity (Common being the one that needs it the most; I'd be cautious giving unlimited attunement to Uncommon items).

I'm surprised you didn't talk about "attunement limit = proficiency bonus". It's still a bandaid but works well enough.

KorvinStarmast

2022-02-03, 04:47 PM

But it only does that to a very limited extent, because we still have things that just straight up give you linear scaling (like +1-+3 magic weapons and armor) not taking attunement at all for whatever reason. Which tells us that maybe the devs didn't hate martial characters. :smallbiggrin:

LudicSavant

2022-02-03, 05:08 PM

Which tells us that maybe the devs didn't hate martial characters. :smallbiggrin:

Eh. I don't really think it's about that. It's just as big a deal if a Cleric puts on +3 armor and shield, or if a Wizard grabs a bandolier of wands of Magic Missile.

If anything, the raw linear scaling of a non-attunement +3 sword may draw people away from more interesting, yet less potent (for their cost), weapons that take attunement. Which I'm not sure is a great thing for the martial experience overall.

Likewise, if you really do assume that the +X stuff really is supposed to be providing a martial advantage, then making that advantage something that you may never get, disconnected from their character, purely in the hands of the DM, is just... making their power level unreliable, if anything.

To me, if I wanted to show love for martials, I would make martial itemization more about expanding their interesting options than giving them +1 to hit. It's prime design space for giving them some real breadth and versatility without going too much into Charles Atlas Superpowers territory.

Greywander

2022-02-03, 05:27 PM

It's just as disruptive if a Cleric puts on +3 armor and shield,
What they could have done instead was to not allow magic items to stack, e.g. if you have two magic items that both give a bonus to AC, you can only apply one of them.

or a Wizard gets a bandolier of Wands of Magic Missile.
This isn't just a wizard thing, though. In fact, there's probably a more useful spell the wizard could be casting. I'm not sure this one is actually a problem. If you actually go to the effort to get multiple wands, then it's probably fine. In a way, these wands fill a similar niche to something like single-shot pistols you might find in a different game: a high damage weapon that only gets one shot. Often such games are a bit more lethal, so you can use the pistol to hopefully eliminate one bad guy right at the start of combat, shifting the odds in your favor. Getting more guns means being able to take out more enemies right at the start, but even then it's still limited by action economy.

What might make sense as an in-universe limitation was if the magic item was drawing energy from the wielder in order to power the magic. But in such a case I'd expect the limitation to be expressed differently, e.g. as a reduction in hit dice or max HP per attuned item, with possibly rare items costing you more.

In general, attunement as a limitation seems like it would run counter to the tone of high fantasy. How many books do you read or movies do you watch where the chosen hero finds a magical or sacred weapon, only to throw it away because they already have too many such items? To be fair, a lot of fiction generally doesn't have quite the volume of magic items as D&D does; that magic sword might be the only magical item in the story.

Perhaps a more inventive limitation might be to have different magic items powered by different types of energy, such that they interfere with one another if you try to use them together. For example, you probably won't be able to use a Holy Avenger together with a Talisman of Ultimate Evil. You might be able to find variants of the same item using a different power source, making them viable for different builds. You'd always be able to stack as many items of the same energy type as you wanted, and some energy types might be compatible, at least to a limited degree, while others are totally exclusive with one another. So maybe something like that. But there's not really a quick and easy way to apply this to 5e.

LudicSavant

2022-02-03, 05:30 PM

In general, attunement as a limitation seems like it would run counter to the tone of high fantasy. How many books do you read or movies do you watch where the chosen hero finds a magical or sacred weapon, only to throw it away because they already have too many such items?

Uhm, quite a few, actually. The very example I gave was from the Witcher.

And even in such mainstream pop culture icons such as the MCU Avengers we see things like people being unable to wield Infinity Gems because their bodies can't handle that amount of power coursing through it. Or at least, unable to do it without suffering terrible consequences and making their usage of it very brief indeed. There's even a whole thing about seeking out a suitable wielder.

There are many other cases of powerful magic macguffins overwhelming a person who isn't strong enough to control it... and also of people who can take it while others can't. This is a straight up common fantasy trope that has more examples than I could name.

This isn't just a wizard thing, though.

Right. It's an everyone thing, which was my point.

In fact, there's probably a more useful spell the wizard could be casting. I'm not sure this one is actually a problem. If you actually go to the effort to get multiple wands, then it's probably fine.

The effort to get multiple wands can potentially be pretty low... such as if anyone god forbid actually was crazy enough to use the guidelines for crafting them in 5e's DMG. And the shenanigans you can get up to with a bandolier of the things can get pretty insane pretty fast. But this has been covered in other threads.

Psyren

2022-02-03, 05:36 PM

The only tweak I've made is to allow a 4th attunement in place of concentration. This mostly impacts late game for full martials and can give them some spell like abilities in lieu of dipping caster.

I like this idea. Lots of melee don't use their concentration "slot" for anything, and gishes and casters aren't buffed by this. Great houserule!

KorvinStarmast

2022-02-03, 05:47 PM

Eh. I don't really think it's about that. It's just as big a deal if a Cleric puts on +3 armor and shield, or if a Wizard grabs a bandolier of wands of Magic Missile. Have yet to see a +3 anything armored in any game I have played. The "bandolier of Wands of Magic Missile" exist in a white room or where there's a magic mart, which is not the base game. Have you seen it in AL?

If anything, the raw linear scaling of a non-attunement +3 sword may draw people away from more interesting
Your opinion.

Likewise, if you really do assume that the +X stuff really is supposed to be providing a martial advantage,
Hardly. Martials seem to need magic weapons to meet genre expectations and to deal with the plethora of resistant and immune critters in higher CR / Tier games. Do not penalize them by making them attune to those, give them three other Non Weapon Non Armor items to attune to.
That's not a hard concept to grasp, and I think it's what is behind that +x weapon/armor non attunement scheme. For the 'interesting' (your words) swords like defender, and some of the multi feature swords, yeah, attunement as a gate.

To me, if I wanted to show love for martials, I would make martial itemization more about expanding their interesting options than giving them +1 to hit.
It is not either or, it is both. By not calling for attunement for that less snazzy +1 sword the slots open up for other 'interesting' items. And you can have a sword that deals with that resistance / immunity problems.

LudicSavant

2022-02-03, 05:50 PM

Have yet to see a +3 anything armored in any game I have played.

...Ooookay. You haven't ever used the item that I'm talking about the design of. What's your point?

Your opinion.

Indeed.

It is not either or, it is both. By not calling for attunement for that less snazzy +1 sword the slots open up for other 'interesting' items.

The sword takes up your hand, and therefore is competing with other swords that take attunement.

It is however true that you still have just as many attunement slots available. In which case one might argue that you're supposed to have 3 items that aren't just linear scaling, with the linear scaling not getting in the way. However I'm not sure that really follows, since a lot of the attunement items are raw linear scaling items. Some pure +X items take attunement, some don't.

I would suspect that attunement exists to naturally limit power through items to some degree (independent of the DM having to worry about babysitting wealth by level), and to make players choose between items rather than simply using them all. But in that case, it seems like it would be more appropriate for things with significant power scaling like +3 armors/weapons/shields to require attunement.

Do you disagree? If so, why?

stoutstien

2022-02-03, 06:15 PM

I personally use con modifier as a replacement for static attunement slot limits. I also don't include weapons and armor in this which fall under a gear augmentation system unless it's a relic or sentient item.

**Artificer get additional augmentation slots to spread around rather than attunement slots**

Greywander

2022-02-03, 06:57 PM

Uhm, quite a few, actually. The very example I gave was from the Witcher.
Potions are a bit different. And in any case, "power at a price" or "dangerous to the wielder" is it's own trope, and often doesn't apply to Sacred Swords or whatever. They're treated as almost completely different things. If such a thing were implemented into 5e, I'd expect it to take the form of randomly getting detrimental effects more than an arbitrary limit, though an arbitrary limit could be used to determine when random detrimental effects should be rolled, e.g. if you're only attuned to one dangerous item, it might be completely safe, while adding a second item might have you rolling with a low risk, three items with a moderate risk, etc.

And even in such mainstream pop culture icons such as the MCU Avengers we see things like people being unable to wield Infinity Gems because their bodies can't handle that amount of power coursing through it. Or at least, unable to do it without suffering terrible consequences and making their usage of it very brief indeed. There's even a whole thing about seeking out a suitable wielder.

There are many other cases of powerful magic macguffins overwhelming a person who isn't strong enough to control it... and also of people who can take it while others can't. This is a straight up common fantasy trope that has more examples than I could name.
This isn't the same thing, though. There's a world of difference between (a) one specific legendary item that only a few people are capable of wielding (often the chosen hero), and (b) a plethora of magic items that anyone can use but no one (not even the chosen hero) can use more than a few at a time. What you're talking about would be more akin to level or stat requirements for specific magic weapons, like a Holy Avenger requiring a 19 in CHA or at least 11 levels in paladin to wield, for example. In this case, either the paladin can or can't wield a Holy Avenger. If they can, then there probably isn't a limit to how many they can wield (except, you know, that they only have two hands).

The effort to get multiple wands can potentially be pretty low... such as if anyone god forbid actually was crazy enough to use the guidelines for crafting them in 5e's DMG. And the shenanigans you can get up to with a bandolier of the things can get pretty insane pretty fast. But this has been covered in other threads.
(a) You have to get the wands first.
(b) It still uses your action to use them.
(c) You have other things you can do that can be almost if not more effective. For example, choosing between a Wand of Magic Missile vs. a fighter's four attacks (which is free) or a high level spell makes the wand look a lot less appealing. Maybe the wand is slightly better, but you went through great effort and/or expenses to obtain those wands. Was it really worth it?

I'm not saying it's bad by any means, just that the usefulness of the wands diminishes as your class features get stronger and you get access to more powerful abilities. It's about the opportunity cost. Not only for your action, but also for the effort put into getting the wands in the first place. You could have bought or crafted a different magic item instead. I think this ends up being inherently self-balancing just by the action economy, plus the limited recharge means you're likely not pulling the same stunt day after day unless you pack more wands.

At the end of the day, it's not changing what you can accomplish in a single round, which is generally where the truly imbalanced stuff lies. Action Surge might be the most broken ability in the game, but it's intentionally broken and we've accepted it as such.

LudicSavant

2022-02-03, 07:35 PM

And even in such mainstream pop culture icons such as the MCU Avengers we see things like people being unable to wield Infinity Gems because their bodies can't handle that amount of power coursing through it. Or at least, unable to do it without suffering terrible consequences and making their usage of it very brief indeed. There's even a whole thing about seeking out a suitable wielder.

There are many other cases of powerful magic macguffins overwhelming a person who isn't strong enough to control it... and also of people who can take it while others can't. This is a straight up common fantasy trope that has more examples than I could name. What you're talking about would be more akin to level or stat requirements for specific magic weapons, like a Holy Avenger requiring a 19 in CHA or at least 11 levels in paladin to wield, for example. In this case, either the paladin can or can't wield a Holy Avenger. If they can, then there probably isn't a limit to how many they can wield (except, you know, that they only have two hands).

On the contrary, what I'm talking about is not more akin to that -- at a very minimum the Infinity Gems example you're replying to here isn't. It's definitely not a case of "if they can use infinity gems at all, there isn't a limit to how many you can wield."

We'll specifically see people able to use a limited number of them okay, but get wrecked when they try to use more than that at once. It's even described in-universe as a limit on the amount of a specific kind of energy a person's body can tolerate, which is why certain characters can use more than others.

Really, the notion that someone can only handle a limited number of objects of power without getting overwhelmed is not a particularly uncommon one in fantasy.

(a) You have to get the wands first.
(b) It still uses your action to use them.
(c) You have other things you can do that can be almost if not more effective. For example, choosing between a Wand of Magic Missile vs. a fighter's four attacks (which is free) or a high level spell makes the wand look a lot less appealing. Maybe the wand is slightly better, but you went through great effort and/or expenses to obtain those wands. Was it really worth it?

(a) Of course. A canny DM will simply restrict access to items and keep a watch on the power level themselves. They will have a good notion of what any given item will do to their game and will hand out loot accordingly.

(b) Since Magic Missile wands don't require attunement by a spellcaster or any other particular requirement, they can just be given to absolutely anyone. Undead minions. Hirelings. Whatever. It's not an attack, so maybe even a familiar could use it. Those characters now can produce a level 6 or 7 Magic Missile, each, once per day per wand. Even if you utilize your own actions however, it is still a meaningful power upgrade which is not reflected by attunement or any other such limiter, similar to +X items.

(c) If some poor hapless inexperienced DM actually were to utilize the aforementioned guidelines in the DMG (and I'm not saying you should -- quite the contrary), then they are relatively cheap and easy to acquire. You could get an entire bandolier of them for considerably less time and money than those +X items mentioned in the same line.

___

This goes back to what I was saying earlier. The attunement system could have been a system that roughly reins in the power ranges of magic items regardless of how much loot the DM is or isn't giving, such that DMs (especially less experienced DMs) would have to worry less about such things. And to some extent it does this... but not to such an extent that the DM doesn't still have to keep a very close eye on things and know what they're doing in terms of loot. You don't want to just haplessly throw loot at the players, because a lot of the stuff that doesn't take attunement can make a big difference.

Indeed, magic items are sufficiently impactful on character power (in a way that the rules simply don't give much in the way of helpful guidelines to new DMs for) that I've seen many a DM wary of handing out much loot at all, as well as plenty of threads (across every D&D message board I've come across, whether it's here, Beyond, Reddit, whatever) where some people talk about never getting any loot and their various opinions on that.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-03, 08:01 PM

Is there a better way (in the abstract)? Probably. There's almost always a better way. But would that better way be as simple and straightforward? Likely not.

And I agree with the others--there's a lot of fantasy resonance to "I can only handle so much magic at a time." And it's even called out that it bonds to your soul. After all, item-slot based ones do the same thing. Why can't you wear 10 rings in 3e? Because they contend with each other. The item-slot limitations are just a bit more granular. But granular is much more complicated.

Is 3 the right number? Meh. Fine with me. Others may disagree.

Are +3 items an issue? They can be. But stacking a +3 shield with +3 plate (or any of the other "top tier" armors for the category) is rare, generally, because those +3 top tier armors? Are the absolute rarest items in the game, at least going by the standard tables. 1/6 or 1/12 of 1% on a single table. In fact, you don't get +X plate or half-plate on any but the highest table. You get +2 leather (equal to +1 studded) a table down. The lifetime probability (levels 1-20) of getting an item off of that top table is roughly 1 (ie you will likely get 1 item per PC from that table). And you've got

2% chance of +1 plate (+ 1% chance on table H of Demon Armor, which is +1 but cursed)
1/6% chance of +2 plate (+ 1% chance on table H of Dwarven Plate, which is +2)
1/12% chance of +3 plate

And there are no named, non-generic plate items that give a +3 bonus. There's Dwarven Plate (a +2 plate) and Demon Armor (+1 cursed plate), but that's all I can find.

Pex

2022-02-03, 08:53 PM

I'm fine with the attunement concept, but I think it would be better if your number of attunement slots was equal to your proficiency bonus. It usually won't matter below level 5 anyway, so you still have effectively 3 for much of your adventuring career and then it increases as the levels progress. It hurts no one for those who prefer a party not have so many magic items while helping those who don't mind such a thing. Warriors would like it to play around with fun stuff after getting their standard magic weapon and armor. Spellcasters get a boost, but that is not an atrocity. No magic items exists without the DM's permission, so no PC spellcaster will Win D&D from this unless the DM lets him.

olskool

2022-02-03, 09:00 PM

I'm surprised you didn't talk about "attunement limit = proficiency bonus". It's still a bandaid but works well enough.

This is the system we use and it works just fine.

Segev

2022-02-03, 10:36 PM

You could have attunement be your Proficiency Bonus plus your Constitution modifier, minimum 1, perhaps. This would get you a fairly large number of them if you push your Constitution.

LudicSavant

2022-02-03, 10:58 PM

quindraco

2022-02-03, 11:28 PM

I wouldn't attach it to Constitution -- at least not in 5e as it currently stands. That mostly is going to benefit SAD classes even more, and put Monks even further behind in terms of itemization benefits.

If anything, I often find that spellcasters end up with the highest Constitutions (because 1- they're SAD and 2- they like to take Con-boosting half-feats like Res:Con).

That said, if I were designing a new system with the goal of making all secondary stats useful for all classes, I might be inclined to tie it to a Strength-like stat.

Or Intelligence, if you're trying to patch the existing system rather than design a new one. Arcana is Intelligence-based and Intelligence is a shockingly useless stat to have a good score in for most, plus the only class that goes over 3 Attunement slots is Artificers - granted, they get Attunement=PB (provided they don't multiclass), but thematically, it still fits.

If the goal isn't to make all stats useful for everyone, you could always tie to Player's choice of stats from the list of stats required to multiclass for every class they have, so Fighters can choose Str or Dex, Rangers can choose Dex or Wis, etc.

Kane0

2022-02-03, 11:40 PM

I know I'm probably preaching to the choir for most of you, but I have a few issues with how attunement works. Thing is, I'm not really sure what a "better" system would look like.
I like it. There is a limit to how much magic gear you can adorn yourself with, which keeps play nice and smooth without throwing away your ability to make interesting decisions if you have multiple items to choose from. It gives some resistance to Monty Hauls and PCs being defined by their possessions.

My issues with the attunement system can be broadly split into two categories: First, I don't really understand what attunement is supposed to represent, in-universe.

There's a couple explanations but to me it's as basic as 'attunement gear relies partially on the user to configure, operate and fuel itself, and there's only so much of you to go around'. Exceptions exist in the form of magic gear that doesn't need it as well as certain characters getting more (Artificers).

Second, it artificially limits certain loadouts. The biggest offender is anyone attuning to more than one weapon

Yes, the whole point of attunement is to enforce a limit (which a bunch of non-attunement magic items sidestep anyways). TWF is in no worse a position than sword & board or ranged weapon & ammo, so it's more the standard that has the two handed weapon user as the exception. Casters are a different kettle of fish of course.

Now, there are some tweaks to the attunement system that could ameliorate the second issue.

- Characters getting more Attunement space as they level up, like matching proficiency bonus for example
- Lesser magic items taking up less attunement than greater ones (works best with scaling attunement space as above)
- Magic items that operate without attunement, and unlock secondary/enhanced benefits with attunement
- Magic items that share an attunement slot as a 'set' (like twin axes or an artifact suit that has been split into armor + boots + gauntlets + helm which can be reunited)

And there are bound to be more ideas out there. There is definitely plenty of space to iterate and refine Attunement.

However, that's really only a bandaid fix, and it doesn't address the first issue. So far, I haven't been able to come up with a satisfactory alternative, and while simply removing attunement limits might be one option, there is the possibility that it could lead to the very thing attunement was designed to prevent: making a character overpowered via magic item stacking.
I could kind of see doing it by equip slot, e.g. you can only wear one hat/helmet or one pair of boots at the same time; rings then become especially useful since you'd be able to equip a lot of them, possibly infinite. I just don't know that the 5e magic system is designed to be accomodated by such a loose limitation. (And this is basically the same as removing attunement anyway.)

Equipment slot leads back to how it was done in previous editions. Instead of any combination of 3 that you can feasibly hold/wear you're seeking to fill up and rotate the best into every space you have (hand + hand + finger + finger + arms + head + face + neck + body + waist + back + feet). I wouldn't call it a better solution personally, but I remember the appeal.

Pex

2022-02-03, 11:55 PM

May want to consider a feat. +1 to ability score of choice, +1 attunement slot. If you think just +1 attunement slot is enough that's fine for your taste. The feat is very campaign dependent if it's worth it.

Christew

2022-02-04, 12:18 AM

Or Intelligence, if you're trying to patch the existing system rather than design a new one. Arcana is Intelligence-based and Intelligence is a shockingly useless stat to have a good score in for most, plus the only class that goes over 3 Attunement slots is Artificers - granted, they get Attunement=PB (provided they don't multiclass), but thematically, it still fits.
Bit of a catch 22 there though. INT is useless for most, except wizards and artificers. As you point out, artificer already gets a boost to attunement slots. Therefore attaching attunement to INT would essentially be a flat buff to wizards. Not ideal.

STR is less thematic than CON, but would have some interesting impact on the caster/martial divide.

stoutstien

2022-02-04, 06:10 AM

I wouldn't attach it to Constitution -- at least not in 5e as it currently stands. That mostly is going to benefit SAD classes even more, and put Monks even further behind in terms of itemization benefits.

If anything, I often find that spellcasters end up with the highest Constitutions (because 1- they're SAD and 2- they like to take Con-boosting half-feats like Res:Con).

That said, if I were designing a new system with the goal of making all secondary stats useful for all classes, I might be inclined to tie it to a Strength-like stat.

Funny I've only seen a handful of casters with con over 16 in my games. I have different rules for preventing slapping armor/shields on casters so readily so maybe the fact they aren't so SaD makes the difference. So they could end up with a higher con score than say the barbarian but it's not as turn key as it is as printed.
As for monks I had a rethink on the whole class and one of the things I gave them is extra ASIs (fighters actual lost them) because they are the chassis that seems to promote the imagery of having the most 'focus' on having heroic levels of multiple areas of body. They also get bonus for empty attunement slots to represent the unburdened mind/soul aesthetic.

So yea probably not a great idea as the rules stand lol.

MoiMagnus

2022-02-04, 06:22 AM

Funny I've only seen a handful of casters with con over 16 in my games. I have different rules for preventing slapping armor/shields on casters so readily so maybe the fact they aren't so SaD makes the difference. So they could end up with a higher con score than say the barbarian but it's not as turn key as it is as printed.

IME if you don't add houserules, casters fall under two categories:
(1) The player loves combat and will have 16 Con or more.
(2) The player loves skills and will have 10/12 Con because they want high values in all 3 of Cha/Wis/Int , and if possible good Dex too.

So adding more things that rely on Con will push casters even more toward making a "battle-mage".

I really like the fact that building a battlemage (whose default position to cast spells is the frontline, and is roughly as squishy as a melee Rogue) is a viable possibility, but it's already strong enough (if not too strong) so more buffs are not required.

KorvinStarmast

2022-02-04, 09:32 AM

...Ooookay. You haven't ever used the item that I'm talking about the design of. What's your point? Their rarity, particularly in the armor, if one takes a look at the DMG and the chances of them showing up makes the "+ 3 Shield +3 armor a white room discussion. They don't show up in game until late tiers unless the DM puts them there on purpose, or some very low probability rolls come up for hoards. I find any argument against them to be vacuous for multiple reasons, but the primary one is "there isn't a magic mart in 5e unless the DM wants one" and "this isn't a video game."

I would suspect that attunement exists to naturally limit power through items to some degree (independent of the DM having to worry about babysitting wealth by level), and to make players choose between items rather than simply using them all. But in that case, it seems like it would be more appropriate for things with significant power scaling like +3 armors/weapons/shields to require attunement.

Do you disagree? Yes, I disagree with the italicized bit, as already explained above.
One is the bag of HP design of higher CR monsters, and monsters in general.
At higher levels there are a lot of magical effects and abilities (Monster, NPC) that render + armor moot, in terms of effects on the PC. And when a PC gets mind controlled by a monster (Dominate exists) that becomes a very lethal problem for the party. (Seen it happen in quite a few battles).

I note that the +3 dwarven thrower requires an attunement slot, for example. Some of the armors with 'interesting' feature do likewise.

In tier's 3 and 4 I have found that higher CR monsters have sufficient attacks in quantity, sufficient + to hit bonuses that a +1 armor +1 shield was hardly a great benefit in terms of it standing out.
At that point adding a cloak of displacement was the bigger benefit (since it shrank crit chances)
The scaling argument would be more valid if this was only a linear, attrition based combat model, but when a monster boss can lay a hold person on your AC 24 or AC 26 PC and all of his minions get advantage on their attack for a round or two (Happened to me in Tier 3/4 more than once) the melt down of your HP is non trivial.

Just out of curiosity: would you recommend that the wand of magic missiles require attunement?
I can see a good argument either way. I like that any PC of any class can use it.
It is currently, to me, a substitute for a loaded pistol lying around that anyone can pick up and use, onw which reloads itself at dawn ... that seems to be the mental model behind where it stands now.

But would that better way be as simple and straightforward? Likely not. KISS was a design principle, somewhat met.

And it's even called out that it bonds to your soul. After all, item-slot based ones do the same thing. {snip} But granular is much more complicated. Concur.

Is 3 the right number? Works for me, and it's another reason I'll not allow any more artificers as a DM. I dislike that feature explicitly.

...because those +3 top tier armors? Are the absolute rarest items in the game, at least going by the standard tables. 1/6 or 1/12 of 1% on a single table. In fact, you don't get +X plate or half-plate on any but the highest table. You get +2 leather (equal to +1 studded) a table down. The lifetime probability (levels 1-20) of getting an item off of that top table is roughly 1 (ie you will likely get 1 item per PC from that table). And you've got
2% chance of +1 plate (+ 1% chance on table H of Demon Armor, which is +1 but cursed)
1/6% chance of +2 plate (+ 1% chance on table H of Dwarven Plate, which is +2)
1/12% chance of +3 plate
Thank you for illustrating the point I was trying to make with Ludic. (Who knows numbers :smallsmile: )

I'm fine with the attunement concept, but I think it would be better if your number of attunement slots was equal to your proficiency bonus. Interesting idea, but I can live without it. I like the three limit. But I am not sure I like that an elven cloak or elven boots require attunement but a broom of flying doesn't. Some of the stuff that requires attunement I'd like to see get another scrub.

Burley

2022-02-04, 09:55 AM

I could get behind a system that gives items a numeric value of 1-10 and a equipment limit based on your character level.
You could go maybe one or two [magic rank] above your level, but maybe there's side-effects to having more magic than your body can stand. Some classes (like artificer) could add their proficiency bonus to their max. Or, maybe classes get a to half the [magic rank] of certain item categories, ie shields for a paladin, wands for wizards. Take a feat to increase your [magic rank] cap or add a new item category to your class's special list.
I think this would make cursed objects more interesting, as well. If you find a magic sword at 5th and identify that its got a [magic rank] of 3, finding that its cursed means those 3/5 [magic ranks] are locked up until you get uncursed.

I think filling up an imaginary bar that goes red if I over-equip is more interesting than "can have three things."

LudicSavant

2022-02-04, 10:04 AM

Their rarity, particularly in the armor, if one takes a look at the DMG and the chances of them showing up makes the "+ 3 Shield +3 armor a white room discussion. They don't show up in game until late tiers unless the DM puts them there on purpose, or some very low probability rolls come up for hoards. I find any argument against them to be vacuous for multiple reasons, but the primary one is "there isn't a magic mart in 5e unless the DM wants one" and "this isn't a video game."

In the quote you were replying to, I said that if +X items show up, they make a meaningful difference in your power level. And that this difference applies whether you're a martial or not. It applies regardless of what +X items we're talking about... it applies to +1 armors, shields, weapons, etc too.

These statements apply regardless of how often the items show up.

KorvinStarmast

2022-02-04, 10:09 AM

In the quote you were replying to, I said that if +X items show up, they make a meaningful difference in your power level. They are supposed to improve your power level. They are magic items.
I honestly don't understand your objection.
Let me offer an example.

My warlock's wand of web at level 6, uncommon item, increased hers and the party's power level a lot. Five to seven, per day, level two spells with a DC of 15 that restrained most enemies?
Allowed me battlefield control?
Without me burning a spell slot? Heck of a ramp up, not to mention web isn't even on her spell list.
On top of that, the enemies so restrained were subject to disadvantage on the dex save versus fireball. And 2d4 more damage, when the wizard was able to do that. (Or his firebolts did 2d4 more damage once). Not sure how you want to plug that into your spread sheets, but there's a power level increase that gating by attunement surely fits into (if I am understanding your position correctly).

(Also, blue dragons have not great dex saves, so guess what else wand of web did? For one round, speed 0 on a blue dragon that took to the sky to attack us from up there. Difference between winning and losing that fight, though it could have made the dex save and ripped us a new one or three ...).

Being slightly harder to hit (+3 rather than +2) has nothing like that kind of impact in Tier 4.

LudicSavant

2022-02-04, 10:12 AM

They are supposed to improve your power level. They are magic items. I don't understand your objection.

My objection was to you saying that this represents whether or not the devs love or hate martials. Here:

https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25353974&postcount=9

To which I replied that I don't think it has much to do with any martials vs casters debate. Here:

But it only does that to a very limited extent, because we still have things that just straight up give you linear scaling (like +1-+3 magic weapons and armor) not taking attunement at all for whatever reason.Which tells us that maybe the devs didn't hate martial characters. :smallbiggrin:Eh. I don't really think it's about that. It's just as big a deal if a Cleric puts on +3 armor and shield, or if a Wizard grabs a bandolier of wands of Magic Missile.

Here I was basically saying "it's about as big a deal if you decide to give powerful magic items to non-martials as if you give them to martials." That has nothing to do with rarity, just with what happens in the event that you choose to introduce such items -- whether that event is common or rare.

I don't think any of that is a casters vs martials thing.

loki_ragnarock

2022-02-04, 10:18 AM

I know I'm probably preaching to the choir for most of you, but I have a few issues with how attunement works. Thing is, I'm not really sure what a "better" system would look like.

I think the interesting part of the post has been lost to bickering about some of the premise.

I also disagree with most of the premise - blanket 3 attunements is dead simple, and that's the original goal of the edition - but why dine on hamburgers when you can get straight to the veal?

Have there been any good proposed alternatives to attunement? Have you ever used an alternative system, and how did it work in practice?
Have you ever played Shadowrun?

If you have, then have you ever reflected on how cybernetics undermines a character's magical potential?

THAT.

That's a better framework. Shadowrun has more complicated mechanics going on with regards to essence degradation, but if you wanted to run with that specific, thematic part of it, then it has potential.

Attunement takes up your highest level spell slots. When you attune to an additional item, it takes up your next highest level of spellslots, and so on and so forth.

What does this mean for wizards, the naturally magical? It means a staff of power is a heavy choice.
What does this mean for rogues, the naturally unmagical? It means they get to play with all the toys come Christmas.

Create a specific carve out for not interacting with pact magic; now warlocks can function under this model, but also get a niche boost as the caster that doesn't get boned by magic items. Maybe making a pact makes more sense than going to college, after all.
Modify the spellcasting section of various classes to create a few other special carveouts, giving paladins one free attunement, rangers two free attunements, Artificers proficiency bonus free attunements, and Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights blanket immunity.

Now *that's* a system.

EDIT
I definitely didn't get here soon enough, dang.

Burley

2022-02-04, 10:25 AM

Have you ever played Shadowrun?

If you have, then have you ever reflected on how cybernetics undermines a character's magical potential?

THAT.

That's a better framework. Shadowrun has more complicated mechanics going on with regards to essence degradation, but if you wanted to run with that specific, thematic part of it, then it has potential.

Attunement takes up your highest level spell slots. When you attune to an additional item, it takes up your next highest level of spellslots, and so on and so forth.

What does this mean for wizards, the naturally magical? It means a staff of power is a heavy choice.
What does this mean for rogues, the naturally unmagical? It means they get to play with all the toys come Christmas.

Create a specific carve out for not interacting with pact magic; now warlocks can function under this model, but also get a niche boost as the caster that doesn't get boned by magic items. Maybe making a pact makes more sense than going to college after all.
Modify the spellcasting section of various classes to create a few other special carveouts, giving paladins one free attunement, rangers two free attunements, Artificers proficiency bonus free attunements, and Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights blanket immunity.

Now *that's* a system.

EDIT
I definitely didn't get here soon enough, dang.

I don't think I like the idea that those who best understand and use magic are more punished for using magic items. Why would a wizard, who could create and enchant magic items, be penalized more than a barbarian? That seems antithetical.
Also, your system requires different rules for each class, which is needlessly complex.

Edit: Okay, maybe not "needlessly." But, complex enough that its not intuitive. Maybe not fun? If I were a caster, I'd never touch magic items, because my highest level spells are my best spells (and what the rest of the game is balanced around). Your system makes players choose between being a wizard or ever interacting with magical inventory.

loki_ragnarock

2022-02-04, 10:33 AM

I don't think I like the idea that those who best understand and use magic are more punished for using magic items. Why would a wizard, who could create and enchant magic items, be penalized more than a barbarian? That seems antithetical.

If you look at it from "Magic good equals magic be good" then it's antithetical.

Different take:
"Magic has an effect on the world, a tangible, undeniable effect on the world that most of us are incapable of seeing or feeling with our mundane sense. Like a noise. And endless cacophonous noise that is all around us, at all times. Most of us, well, most of us are deaf. We'll never really hear the noise. Some people learn how to hear the noise, and then add a little bit more highly specific noise to the environment to change things in a way that even the deaf will notice, like finding harmonic frequencies.
This armor is basically screaming all the time. For those of us who aren't deaf, it's a miserable, distracting experience. I'm not going to wear it anymore than you would try to sing opera at a bulldozer."

Burley

2022-02-04, 10:36 AM

If you look at it from "Magic good equals magic be good" then it's antithetical.

Different take:
"Magic has an effect on the world, a tangible, undeniable effect on the world that most of us are incapable of seeing or feeling with our mundane sense. Like a noise. And endless cacophonous noise that is all around is, at all times. Most of us, well, most of us are deaf. We'll never really hear the noise. Some people learn how to hear the noise, and then add a little bit more highly specific noise to the environment to change things in a way that even the deaf will notice, like finding harmonic frequencies.
This armor is basically screaming all the time. For those of us who aren't deaf, it's a miserable, distracting experience. I'm not going to wear it anymore than you would try to sing opera at a bulldozer."

I don't really understand what you mean by "Magic good equals magic be good." Aside from being grammatically confusing, it doesn't describe my stance, at all. I think you just threw out some overly simplistic and meaningless phrase to weaken my stance. ANYWAY...

How about the take: A wizard trained for 40 years to understand, manipulate and master the arcane energies around them. But, if they have a magic wand, they loose access to their greatest discoveries? So, wizards would never create magic items because they're arcanely toxic. So, magic items never get created.

Psyren

2022-02-04, 10:42 AM

I'm actually not in favor of the proficiency bonus rule; 6 slots for every character (especially casters) feels excessive. I could see martials going up to 4 (the concentration rule) but for more than that I like preserving that niche for the artificer.

May want to consider a feat. +1 to ability score of choice, +1 attunement slot. If you think just +1 attunement slot is enough that's fine for your taste. The feat is very campaign dependent if it's worth it.

I wouldn't mind a bonus attunement slot-granting feat or boon. It hoses Monks further but Monks should get a bonus ASI anyway.

Spellcasters get a boost, but that is not an atrocity. No magic items exists without the DM's permission, so no PC spellcaster will Win D&D from this unless the DM lets him.

More magic items are useful for casters though. A number either require attunement by a spellcaster (e.g. most wands), need your spellcasting ability to function (most spell scrolls) or can work for anyone but work better for characters with spellcasting ability (e.g. those that use your spell attack roll, DC etc.) The ones that don't often work for anyone, casters included. This makes any random generation methods favor the casters in the party; lower attunement limits at least restrict how many of such items these already powerful characters can benefit from simultaneously.

Yes, the whole point of attunement is to enforce a limit (which a bunch of non-attunement magic items sidestep anyways). TWF is in no worse a position than sword & board or ranged weapon & ammo, so it's more the standard that has the two handed weapon user as the exception. Casters are a different kettle of fish of course.

Ammunition doesn't usually require attunement to my knowledge. I actually agree that TWF is worse off when you have to attune to two weapons, I'd be inclined to let one attunement apply to both for that character. They already have the disadvantage of both hands being occupied and (usually) a feat tax to get all their attacks on par with a 2H user.

If you have, then have you ever reflected on how cybernetics undermines a character's magical potential?

THAT.

That's a better framework. Shadowrun has more complicated mechanics going on with regards to essence degradation, but if you wanted to run with that specific, thematic part of it, then it has potential.

Attunement takes up your highest level spell slots. When you attune to an additional item, it takes up your next highest level of spellslots, and so on and so forth.

I dislike this quite a bit. Almost no item (not even a legendary) is going to be worth a 9th, 8th or even 7th-level slot, and those slots tend to benefit the whole party far more than an item will. There's also the issue of what happens when you attune during the day - will it take up the slots you already spent (thereby counterintuitively giving casters MORE power as the day goes on, or at least having them reduce more slowly) or will it shift down to the ones you haven't? In both cases you're encouraging them to nova earlier in the day so they are giving up weaker slots to power their items.

loki_ragnarock

2022-02-04, 10:43 AM

How about the take: A wizard trained for 40 years to understand, manipulate and master the arcane energies around them. But, if they have a magic wand, they loose access to their greatest discoveries? So, wizards would never create magic items because they're arcanely toxic. So, magic items never get created.

Wizards do all kinds of things that don't make sense. Up to and including creating owlbears.

A wizard who is entirely selfish never creates magic items. Actually, what I just said doesn't hold up to scrutiny; it's more that a perfectly self reliant wizard who wants to see to every issue himself, personally, never creates magic items. But a wizard with flunkies sure might. A wizard engaged in conflict with another wizard with his brilliant enormo-brain might look at all those people around him who could be put to use in that conflict and decide to give them an edge. And so they create magic items not for themselves, but to enhance their supporting players. That competitive advantage materially outperforms the wizards that refuse to do so, creating an evolutionary trend towards wizards making magic items.
And magic items are inevitably created.

Just fewer staves of power and more armors of resistance.

LudicSavant

2022-02-04, 10:45 AM

MoiMagnus

2022-02-04, 10:47 AM

What does this mean for wizards, the naturally magical? It means a staff of power is a heavy choice.
What does this mean for rogues, the naturally unmagical? It means they get to play with all the toys come Christmas.

Ok for a magic sword of a magic armour. Those stuff have been designed with a warrior in mind, not being adapted to wizard is not totally unreasonable.

But an object that has been made by wizard, for wizards, with for only goal of making wizard being better at casting magic? It just feels wrong (or antithetical as Burley says) that the Archimage's staff makes the Archimage worst at casting magic.

loki_ragnarock

2022-02-04, 10:47 AM

I dislike this quite a bit. Almost no item (not even a legendary) is going to be worth a 9th, 8th or even 7th-level slot, and those slots tend to benefit the whole party far more than an item will.
That's a feature, not a bug.

There's also the issue of what happens when you attune during the day - will it take up the slots you already spent (thereby counterintuitively giving casters MORE power as the day goes on, or at least having them reduce more slowly) or will it shift down to the ones you haven't? In both cases you're encouraging them to nova earlier in the day so they are giving up weaker slots to power their items.

Fair point.

But it does give those pesky long rest classes a reason to engage in short rests, no?

Psyren

2022-02-04, 10:54 AM

That's a feature, not a bug.

For the reason I stated, I don't think it's a good feature. Also, what MoiMagnus said.

Fair point.

But it does give those pesky long rest classes a reason to engage in short rests, no?

They already have a reason to do that. It's not like they're going to keep adventuring for an hour while the martials rest.

Burley

2022-02-04, 10:54 AM

I'm not sure the conclusion (magic items never get created) follows from the premises (the item isn't useful for the Wizard to personally equip) here.

After all, a Wizard might create a nice piece of plate armor for someone else, even if wearing it themselves would interfere with their somatic components or whatever.

You're right. That's a fair observation. It would still lead to wizard-y items never being created, I think. And, I think magic armor and weapons would be exceedingly rare, or created on commission only. Certainly rare enough that we don't need a whole new system to accommodate the few magic items in the world. That's why its antithetical.

It's just a "feels bad, man." Its punishing to casters and creates a weird dynamic between magic-havers and magic-havenoters, where the havers are expected to give away their researched secrets or innate prowess to the havenoters, by way of crafted items that havers can't use.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-04, 11:04 AM

Side note--wizards aren't the ones who make magic items in 5e. You don't need to be a spell-caster to make magic items. All you need is (using Xanathar's rules):
* Time
* Money
* A formula
* A key item
* Proficiency in the appropriate tool.
That's it. Wizards aren't any better by virtue of their class at making magic items (with the sole exception of scrolls, because those can use Arcana proficiency).

Note--you don't need a check of any kind. You don't need a spell of any kind.

So the idea that wizards are the ones making magic items is old-edition hangovers.

Not that I like the "attunement == spell slots" idea.

Personally, my thinking goes like
1) I have a setting metaphysic construct that explains how magic items work (including both attunement and recharging). Thus, it's an organic part of the world.
2) It needs to be limited both for setting and balance reasons.
3) 2 is too few, 4 is (if available to everyone) too many.
4) So 3 is fine.

At most, some tweaking around what requires attunement[1] and how you can spend build resources to gain more is all that's needed for my games.

[1] I'd be more likely to say that anything that gives +numbers or strong new options should require it. Most of the minor utility items don't need it, especially the quirky ones. And yes, some of the flight items need adjustment.

LudicSavant

2022-02-04, 11:25 AM

You're right. That's a fair observation. It would still lead to wizard-y items never being created, I think. And, I think magic armor and weapons would be exceedingly rare, or created on commission only. Certainly rare enough that we don't need a whole new system to accommodate the few magic items in the world. That's why its antithetical.

It's just a "feels bad, man." Its punishing to casters and creates a weird dynamic between magic-havers and magic-havenoters, where the havers are expected to give away their researched secrets or innate prowess to the havenoters, by way of crafted items that havers can't use.

Yeah. I personally wouldn't want D&D to have a system that discouraged the wands, staffs of power, and so forth.

Burley

2022-02-04, 11:26 AM

Segev

2022-02-04, 12:00 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-04, 12:15 PM

Leaving attunement slots at 3 without any other build choices considered, perhaps giving bonus attunement slots to various classes that are considered to have lackluster or even dead levels past level 10 would be a viable idea? Eitehr on subclasses that are lacking, or on entire class chassis?

Any class that is commonly considered not worth going to 20 in should have the breakpoint levels where "you should leave before taking this level" be under consideration for a bonus attunement slot at that level. (There's argument to be made about "but that means they take just that one more, then jump out, and we can't give them +1 attunement at EVERY level!" but I'm speaking about a starting point, not about this being a universal solution.)

:grumpy-cat: or maybe fix multiclassing so it's not so attractive to jump ship. Just registering my (aesthetic) dislike of level-by-level multiclassing and the attendant issues it creates. I'd much prefer a "feat based" (ie 4e/PF2e style) or "dual-classing-like" (2e style) system. Or increasing the number of subclasses for "common" multiclasses.

But level-by-level multiclassing will always be broken. Either it's not worth it and is a waste of space and effort to print and write, or it has loopholes that make it super attractive, devaluing the identities of the classes themselves.

I also recognize that this is a total pipe dream and a highly unpopular opinion on these forums.

MoiMagnus

2022-02-04, 12:18 PM

Leaving attunement slots at 3 without any other build choices considered, perhaps giving bonus attunement slots to various classes that are considered to have lackluster or even dead levels past level 10 would be a viable idea? Eitehr on subclasses that are lacking, or on entire class chassis?

You could probably also add some attunement slots to feats.
The "X armour master" (the one that grant bonuses, not the one that grant proficiency) could also come with "X armours don't count under the limit of 3 objects attuned".
The TWF feat could come with "if you're attuned to two weapons, the second doesn't count under the limit of 3 objects attuned".
One feat like mobile and/or athlete could come with "boots don't count under the limit of 3 objects attuned".
If you remove the -5/+10 from feats (to give it to everyone for free, or just to remove it from the game), then you can add to those feats "X weapon doesn't count under the limit of 3 objects attuned" to still make them interesting.
Etc.

KorvinStarmast

2022-02-04, 12:32 PM

"Magic has an effect on the world, a tangible, undeniable effect on the world that most of us are incapable of seeing or feeling with our mundane sense. Like a noise. And endless cacophonous noise that is all around us, at all times. Most of us, well, most of us are deaf. We'll never really hear the noise. Some people learn how to hear the noise, and then add a little bit more highly specific noise to the environment to change things in a way that even the deaf will notice, like finding harmonic frequencies.
This armor is basically screaming all the time. For those of us who aren't deaf, it's a miserable, distracting experience. I'm not going to wear it anymore than you would try to sing opera at a bulldozer."
Loved this post. <3

Wizards do all kinds of things that don't make sense. Up to and including creating owlbears. The standard defense is either
"it seemed like a good idea at the time"
or
"I hadn't realized that you only think you get smarter the more you drink" :smallbiggrin:

A wizard engaged in conflict with another wizard with his brilliant enormo-brain might look at all those people around him who could be put to use in that conflict and decide to give them an edge. And so they create magic items not for themselves, but to enhance their supporting players. That competitive advantage materially outperforms the wizards that refuse to do so, creating an evolutionary trend towards wizards making magic items.
And magic items are inevitably created.
Just fewer staves of power and more armors of resistance.

"Three spears for martial peers fighting in melee,
Seven axes for the dwarfs with visages of stone,
Nine shields for champions with their feet of clay,
One rod for the wizard, studying all alone
In his arcane tower, where the dwoemers fly"
:smallsmile:

You could probably also add some attunement slots to feats. At the risk of yet one more "must have" feat tossed into the mix. Hard pass, from this seat at the table.

ad_hoc

2022-02-04, 12:48 PM

I've never played in a game where the characters ran out of attunement slots.

They are already limited in the game by default. The answer to the thread question is not to make them unlimited.

Elves

2022-02-04, 04:15 PM

Agreed, it's a mechanic that feels bad and is out of touch with the source material. In fantasy stories where people use few magic items, it's because magic items are rare, not because people reject useful items due to an arbitrary limit. If a DM wants to run a low-magic-item game, the way to do it is to make magic items few and far between.

Given that 5e has abandoned the idea of standardized wealth by level, I don't see why it needs this mechanic anyway. Let magic item prevalence be the purview of the DM.

Dork_Forge

2022-02-04, 04:16 PM

Attunement means that you don't have to babysit your loot drops as much, over a long campaign things add up, even if they're given out rarely.

Then there's the Artificer where it's used as a balance point.

Psyren

2022-02-04, 04:26 PM

Elves

2022-02-04, 04:27 PM

Attunement means that you don't have to babysit your loot drops as much, over a long campaign things add up, even if they're given out rarely.
But presumably low level items become less useful as you gain levels. That +1 fire damage ring you got at 3rd level isn't doing much for you at 15th level, so it doesn't upset the game balance if you can keep wearing it rather than having to throw it away.

What I would do is create a table where at a certain rarity or volume of items, a PC's effective level for the purpose of XP rewards and appropriate encounters is higher. If a 1st tier PC has a rare item or more than 3 common items, count them as 1 level higher, if a 2nd tier PC has a very rare or more than 3 uncommon items, etc. That provides a benchmark for DMs to run games at whatever frequency of magic items they want.

Kane0

2022-02-04, 04:34 PM

But presumably low level items become less useful as you gain levels. That +1 fire damage ring you got at 3rd level isn't doing much for you at 15th level, so it doesn't upset the game balance if you can keep wearing it rather than having to throw it away.

So your 15th level character probably wont mind swapping it for something else, even if they dont get rid of it for sentimental reasons.

Elves

2022-02-04, 04:38 PM

Why would you reject items? You can change your attunements by short-resting, there's no reason not to hang on to whatever you find even if you can't use all of it 24/7 simultaneously.
But why do I have to take my magic boots off to use the magic pendant? Not to mention the 1 hour attunement time -- I can't take my oppo's magic weapon in combat and cleverly use it against them, etc. The attunement rules mess with the fantasy a lot for no clear benefit.

So your 15th level character probably wont mind swapping it for something else, even if they dont get rid of it for sentimental reasons.
If the two outcomes are equivalent balance-wise, isn't the rule unnecessary? So why keep it when it has downsides?

Kane0

2022-02-04, 04:43 PM

If the two outcomes are equivalent balance-wise, isn't the rule unnecessary? So why keep it when it has downsides?

They arent. In one case you have +1 fire damage and something else, in the other case you have +1 fire damage or something else.
+1 fire damage is admittedly a small impact, but an impact nontheless. And attunement isnt limited to such small scale, it could be teleport 3/day or triple jump/carry or decapitation on crit.

Elves

2022-02-04, 04:55 PM

They arent. In one case you have +1 fire damage and something else, in the other case you have +1 fire damage or something else.
At 15th level, the difference isn't meaningful.

And attunement isnt limited to such small scale, it could be teleport 3/day or triple jump/carry or decapitation on crit.
Those aren't effects that would be on 3rd level items.

Dork Forge was saying that even if a DM wanted to run a low-power game, a slow trickle of items would add up over time if there were no attunement limit. But my point is that if this DM is only rarely handing out items, the PCs won't ever have more level-appropriate items than they would under the current rules, and might have fewer.

Dork_Forge

2022-02-04, 04:59 PM

But presumably low level items become less useful as you gain levels. That +1 fire damage ring you got at 3rd level isn't doing much for you at 15th level, so it doesn't upset the game balance if you can keep wearing it rather than having to throw it away.

What I would do is create a table where at a certain frequency or volume of items, a PC's effective level for the purpose of XP rewards is 1, 2, or 3 higher. If a 1st tier PC has a rare item or more than 3 common items, count them as 1 higher, if a 2nd tier PC has a very rare or more than 3 uncommon items, etc. That provides a benchmark for DMs to run games at whatever frequency of magic items they want.

Maybe this was just a poor example, but it didn't ring true with 5e in my view whatsoever. The only example we have of something so minor as a +1 damage is the Eberron focus rules, which don't eat up your concentration at all and are more guidelines for interesting foci and customising existing magic items.

A cloak of protection is uncommon, and that +1 to your AC and saves is always going to be relevant. This kind of obsolescence sounds like something you'd get in older editions, or in video games, not so much 5e.

Also: swapping attunement isn't throwing stuff away, both my parties enjoy getting to swap out items to be more ready for certain situations. What you're arguing for is essentially straight power creep, that hypothetical +1 fire damage item isn't much on its own, but when you start stacking it with other items that don't mean much then it can be an issue.

Psyren

2022-02-04, 05:13 PM

But why do I have to take my magic boots off to use the magic pendant? Not to mention the 1 hour attunement time -- I can't take my oppo's magic weapon in combat and cleverly use it against them, etc. The attunement rules mess with the fantasy a lot for no clear benefit.

Both scenarios are working as intended.

1) You don't have to take your boots off to de-attune, you just can't benefit from the pendant's magic once you're already at your limit. You can still wear them both.
2) Similarly, you can use your opponent's weapon against them just fine, you just won't get to access the magic from it if it requires attunement.

I could maybe see a feat or other mechanic where you can "fast-attune to something" as your Action 1/day in exchange for a level of exhaustion or something, but otherwise, the time it takes to attune to a new item is part of the balance point for items that require attunement.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-04, 05:26 PM

But my point is that if this DM is only rarely handing out items, the PCs won't ever have more level-appropriate items than they would under the current rules, and might have fewer.

The concept of "below level-appropriate" items does not apply to 5e. Full stop. A +1 sword is just as appropriate (ie "a meaningful bonus") at level 20 as it is at level 5. This is not PF/3e/PF2e/SF. You can, as a martial, be totally fine with a moon-touched blade (ie a common item that glows and counts as magic and that's all) at level 20. There's no expectation of obsoleting magic items.

The only similar concept is that some items are too strong for lower levels. But that's not what's being discussed.

Kane0

2022-02-04, 05:31 PM

I could maybe see a feat or other mechanic where you can "fast-attune to something" as your Action 1/day in exchange for a level of exhaustion or something, but otherwise, the time it takes to attune to a new item is part of the balance point for items that require attunement.

Sounds pretty neat.

Segev

2022-02-04, 05:33 PM

I've never played in a game where the characters ran out of attunement slots.

They are already limited in the game by default. The answer to the thread question is not to make them unlimited.

I am juggling 4 magic items with three attunement slots to use on them on my current character.

Elves

2022-02-04, 05:35 PM

A cloak of protection is uncommon, and that +1 to your AC and saves is always going to be relevant.
Which makes running that low-power, low-item game easy, if that's what you want to do. No need to get shiny new items every level. Give out something once and it's good forever. Which is how most fantasy stories work.

But I'm not sure that cloak is the best example given 5e tends to steer away from numerical bonuses in favor of "interesting" benefits. Items with a level-appropriate utility, rather than a d20 modifier, do scale. You aren't seeing a helm of teleportation at 1st level. An item that creates goodberries isn't doing much for you at 10th.

Limited use items are a great thing to lean on if you're worried about item pileup. You might reward permanent items rarely but still hand out potions like candy. This is one of the reasons why it's odd that 5e made wands and staves more permanent, when consumable items are a perfect fit for its low-item ethos.

In short: if you want to do a low item game, don't hand out (permanent) items frequently. You can fill the gaps with consumables and items that will be obsoleted later. But if you want to run a high item game, you should be free to. Leaving the rate of item acquisition in the DM's hands is a better fit for the 5e ethos than the universal hard-3 limit, and avoids unintuitive gamist restrictions.

Both scenarios are working as intended.
1) You don't have to take your boots off to de-attune, you just can't benefit from the pendant's magic once you're already at your limit. You can still wear them both.
Whether you're actually wearing it or not isn't the point. Why only 3 at a time? It doesn't make sense. You can contrive a reason ("Mystra says so") but it's not intuitive and it's not shared by any fantasy story I've ever heard.

2) Similarly, you can use your opponent's weapon against them just fine, you just won't get to access the magic from it if it requires attunement.
Also missing the point. You can't grab an evil wizard's staff in the final confrontation and use its magic against him. The sorting hat can't manifest a magic sword that you grab and use. These are classic tropes. They're also common sense. If an item does something, why do I have to wait an hour after picking it up to use it?

Psyren

2022-02-04, 06:04 PM

Also missing the point. You can't grab an evil wizard's staff in the final confrontation and use its magic against him. The sorting hat can't manifest a magic sword that you grab and use. These are classic tropes. They're also common sense. If an item does something, why do I have to wait an hour after picking it up to use it?

Basic magic swords (+1, +2, +3) don't actually require attunement. Just have the sorting hat make one of those, there's no reason to suspect GG was rocking anything more special than that.

As for the evil wizard... I mean, it's his staff. Any random murderhobo being able to use it against him in seconds would be a pretty big design flaw :smalltongue:

Pex

2022-02-04, 06:22 PM

I'm actually not in favor of the proficiency bonus rule; 6 slots for every character (especially casters) feels excessive. I could see martials going up to 4 (the concentration rule) but for more than that I like preserving that niche for the artificer.

I'm playing an Artificer. Even with the bonus attunement I need to pick and choose since some infusions take up attunement slots. (I'm ok with that.) I'm still wanting more slots. :smallyuk:

The current, official rule as is works fine. Some games are more magic item rich than others, so for those games a reasonable means for more attunement slots would help. It's still the case that no magic item exists without the DM's permission. It's understandable to be concerned about 3E's issue of PCs having multiple powerful items, but an increase in attunement slots doesn't mean that in 5E even at high level. It can be subjective what is a minor power magic item, but given a DM who needs/wants this for that campaign it allows such minor magic items see use since players still want to attune to the major ones.

I doubt 5.5E will increase attunement slots. A set 3 slots works for 5E. Proficiency bonus slots is a reasonable method for those campaigns where 3 slots is not enough. People like to praise low magic campaigns, but high magic campaigns exists. Players (including DMs) enjoy them, they aren't Monty Hall games, and the game is not falling apart.

You could probably also add some attunement slots to feats.
The "X armour master" (the one that grant bonuses, not the one that grant proficiency) could also come with "X armours don't count under the limit of 3 objects attuned".
The TWF feat could come with "if you're attuned to two weapons, the second doesn't count under the limit of 3 objects attuned".
One feat like mobile and/or athlete could come with "boots don't count under the limit of 3 objects attuned".
If you remove the -5/+10 from feats (to give it to everyone for free, or just to remove it from the game), then you can add to those feats "X weapon doesn't count under the limit of 3 objects attuned" to still make them interesting.
Etc.

Me likes!

I've never played in a game where the characters ran out of attunement slots.

They are already limited in the game by default. The answer to the thread question is not to make them unlimited.

I have. It wasn't a problem of the game. The rule works fine as is. However, for those campaigns where it could come in handy it's nice to have something reasonable as opposed to no attunement needed at all for everything. Just because the limit is increased doesn't mean everyone is roaming around with oodles of artifacts. Nothing exists without the DM's permission. Because players want to attune to the major items it leaves room for more niche, quirky, interesting items to get used, even ones the DM made up himself.

Another option is to remove the attunement requirement of these niche, quirky, interesting items. It does the same thing but requires a little more work on the DM to make the decision for each item as it appears to remove attunement or not. It's easier to have one house rule to increase attunement and be done.

MoiMagnus

2022-02-04, 06:41 PM

Why only 3 at a time? It doesn't make sense. You can contrive a reason ("Mystra says so") but it's not intuitive and it's not shared by any fantasy story I've ever heard.

Just to be curious, do you have any fantasy story in mind where a single character (if possible a protagonist) uses:
+ More than 3 magic items
+ Non-consumable ones
+ Which are not "bland" ones (which would correspond to +N objects in D&D, that don't require attunement)
+ Those magic items are used at the same time, or almost so
Bonus point if you find one that would not be an artificer in D&D.

Every fantasy that comes to my mind, it's either "low magic", "didn't have time to get them" or "plot convenience because otherwise the story would be messy" that explains why the protagonist are not stuffed to the teeth with powerful magic items.

Elves

2022-02-04, 07:01 PM

Just to be curious, do you have any fantasy story in mind where a single character (if possible a protagonist) uses:
+ More than 3 magic items.
The key question is, in the stories where they don't, why don't they? Because they have a sack full of items but are only allowed to use 3 at a time? Or because in those settings the items are rare and hard to get?

If you want a low-item setting, the 3 item limit is going at it backwards.

Sigreid

2022-02-04, 07:06 PM

At your table, the simplest solution would be just to raise the number of attunement slots. It's purpose is to prevent the magical Christmas tree character. You can even toss the limit out if that's to your liking.

Dork_Forge

2022-02-04, 07:11 PM

Which makes running that low-power, low-item game easy, if that's what you want to do. No need to get shiny new items every level. Give out something once and it's good forever. Which is how most fantasy stories work.

But I'm not sure that cloak is the best example given 5e tends to steer away from numerical bonuses in favor of "interesting" benefits. Items with a level-appropriate utility, rather than a d20 modifier, do scale. You aren't seeing a helm of teleportation at 1st level. An item that creates goodberries isn't doing much for you at 10th.

Limited use items are a great thing to lean on if you're worried about item pileup. You might reward permanent items rarely but still hand out potions like candy. This is one of the reasons why it's odd that 5e made wands and staves more permanent, when consumable items are a perfect fit for its low-item ethos.

My point was that items don't become obsolete like you are claiming they do, and there are enough numerical bonus items that the point stands either way. Your counterexample doesn't really make sense, of course you're not likely to get a massive amount of access to a 7th level spell as a first level character. That has nothing to do with attunement or the pace of handing out items, but is a good example of a powerful item that attunement helps keep in check to a certain degree.

And there are plenty of cool magic items that don't require attunement at all, +x weapons, but also items like the cape of the mountebank.

Whether you're actually wearing it or not isn't the point. Why only 3 at a time? It doesn't make sense. You can contrive a reason ("Mystra says so") but it's not intuitive and it's not shared by any fantasy story I've ever heard.

Also missing the point. You can't grab an evil wizard's staff in the final confrontation and use its magic against him. The sorting hat can't manifest a magic sword that you grab and use. These are classic tropes. They're also common sense. If an item does something, why do I have to wait an hour after picking it up to use it?

I'm not sure why you picked Harry Potter as a touchstone for tropes, it's magic system is poorly defined and that's probably because it isn't thought out. There's no reason that the hat, or the sword, should be attunement in D&D. A sword that never rusts or needs sharpening would count as magical for getting around nonmagical resistance/immunity and do just fine as the sword of Gryffindor, which is extremely underwhelming as far as magic swords go.

You can also use a weapon that requires attunement immediately, but why would you expect to get the full benefits of something you just picked up? How would you even know how to use it? etc. etc.

The key question is, in the stories where they don't, why don't they? Because they have a sack full of items but are only allowed to use 3 at a time? Or because in those settings the items are rare and hard to get?

If you want a low-item setting, the 3 item limit is going at it backwards.

You just completely sidestepped the question you were asked.

But how about this:

A setting with a 3 attunement limit is a setting where you don't have to justify why anyone with power doesn't just hoard magic items to becoming increasingly more powerful.

If you want magic items to be something not so incredibly scarce in your games, but you've ditched attunement, or made it so permissive that it's a shell of itself, then you have to answer the question: Why is the BBEG (and any lieutenant below them) not both an incredibly powerful monster, but also loaded up with an obscene amount of magic items?

Elves

2022-02-04, 09:03 PM

Your counterexample doesn't really make sense, of course you're not likely to get a massive amount of access to a 7th level spell as a first level character. That has nothing to do with attunement or the pace of handing out items, but is a good example of a powerful item that attunement helps keep in check to a certain degree.
How does attunement keep it in check? You're free to attune to the helm of teleportation at a low level.

It's an example of how items that don't grant modifiers to d20 rolls do scale. In a no-attunement ruleset where you want to keep your game low-powered, you can confidently hand out those goodberry or +1 fire damage magic items, knowing that by high levels, they won't make a real power difference. You as DM control the rate at which you hand out items, so you can still keep people at the 3-level-appropriate-items (or fewer) threshold if you want.

You just completely sidestepped the question you were asked.
I agree with him that most fantasy settings are low magic by D&D standards. But if you went up to someone in those settings and gave them a bunch of magic items, they would eagerly use them all.

A setting with a 3 attunement limit is a setting where you don't have to justify why anyone with power doesn't just hoard magic items to becoming increasingly more powerful.
Sure, in a high-magic setting, that would be the norm. It's certainly true in most of the pre-5e lore.
But if you don't want that to be the case, you can have a setting where magic items are very rare and hard to get, the secrets of making them are lost, etc. An advantage of 5e not expecting PCs or NPCs to have magic items is that you can tune the item frequency to whatever you want. It's a shame that the attunement rule cracks down on that advantage.

It's understandable to be concerned about 3E's issue of PCs having multiple powerful items,
What's wrong with having multiple powerful items?

I've heard the "Christmas tree" critique, but I think it's really 3 separate criticisms:
1) PCs not being able to face level-appropriate monsters without magic items
2) Boring items that only provide pluses to basic stats so that you can meet the expected number curve
3) Having 'too many items'

I agree with the first two criticisms. But I don't see how having a large number of magic items hurts the game. It may not be everyone's preferred gameplay style. But is it actually a problem?

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-04, 09:19 PM

What's wrong with having multiple powerful items?

I've heard the "Christmas tree" critique, but I think it's really 3 separate criticisms:
1) PCs not being able to face level-appropriate monsters without magic items
2) Boring items that only provide pluses to basic stats so that you can meet the expected number curve
3) Having 'too many items'

I agree with the first two criticisms. But I don't see how having a large number of magic items hurts the game. It may not be everyone's preferred gameplay style. But is it actually a problem?

Monty Haul has been breaking games since...well...about day 2 in D&D's history. And the issues are several--

1. If the core game doesn't assume you'll have those items, then having them makes the party well past the normal top range, which makes challenging them nearly impossible while keeping any semblance of sanity. Been there, seen that. Like "fighting 6 gods in a day to get a challenge" kinds of insanity. DM workload increases exponentially and settings fall apart.
2. If the core game does assume you'll have those items for core mechanical needs, see Christmas Tree and Gear Treadmill. And settings still fall apart.
3. Either way, settings start being strained by a party walking around with 3-4 large kingdoms worth of gear. Unless that's normal, in which case it fell apart a long time ago. Note: 3e-style power levels and coherent settings are antithetical.

Either way, you're out of luck. The only way to make "having lots of items" meaningful but optional is if those items don't really do much. Which kinda belies the whole "powerful items" thing.

Pex

2022-02-04, 09:50 PM

What's wrong with having multiple powerful items?

I've heard the "Christmas tree" critique, but I think it's really 3 separate criticisms:
1) PCs not being able to face level-appropriate monsters without magic items
2) Boring items that only provide pluses to basic stats so that you can meet the expected number curve
3) Having 'too many items'

I agree with the first two criticisms. But I don't see how having a large number of magic items hurts the game. It may not be everyone's preferred gameplay style. But is it actually a problem?

Philosophically, what's the character - his class or the magic items he has? When using magic items is the better thing to do in every round on a consistent basis than using a class ability or basic any character can do the thing, then you're not really playing a character anymore. You're playing a walking pile of things. It's fine for one combat where using a magic item or two every round is absolutely needed. The issue is when it's every combat.

In D&D as the levels progress PCs grow in power. That's a feature that is supposed to happen, and I really don't have sympathy for DMs who hate that. If D&D power is above your tolerance level that's not D&D's fault. However, having a lot of powerful magic items either escalates that power or prematurely gives PCs power levels before they or the game are ready to handle it depending on when they're acquired. For DMs and players who enjoy such cosmic power, go for it. Monster CR, spell levels, class level progression, power effects are given at specific levels of play. Getting 12th levels powers at 6th level alters game play not so easily recovered. Even if the power effects of magic items acquired are each individually 6th level worth, accumulating too much of them your effective power is more than 6th level.

That's the worried concern, and it's a worthy concern, but that doesn't mean it must happen just because the number of attunement slots are increased. No magic item exists with the DM's permission. If the DM is to increase attunement slots it is his responsibility the game does not fall apart because of the magic items he provides.

Unoriginal

2022-02-04, 10:03 PM

I've heard the "Christmas tree" critique, but I think it's really 3 separate criticisms:
1) PCs not being able to face level-appropriate monsters without magic items
2) Boring items that only provide pluses to basic stats so that you can meet the expected number curve
3) Having 'too many items'

I agree with the first two criticisms.

1) and 2) are more criticisms of the magic item treadmill, which is a legit but separate issue from the Christmas Tree effect.

But I don't see how having a large number of magic items hurts the game. It may not be everyone's preferred gameplay style. But is it actually a problem?

In 3.X, when it came to magic items, a single character could have:

-One helm/hat/headband
-One robe/mantle
-One cape/necklace/amulet
-One armor
-One pair of magic shoes
-One pair of magic gloves/gauntlets
-Two rings
-As many magical weapons/wands/staffs as you could carry
-As many miscellaneous items as you could carry, including items that let you carry more items
-As many alternative options of other kinds of items mentioned above that you could carry.

And past a certain level there was no reason for a 3.X character to *not* have all those, as long as the magic item treadmill and other considerations had kept the item worthwhile.

The edition made them cheap to acquire, and so people acquired them.

And what wasn't worthwhile? Sold or forgotten.

Magic items were cheap, banal, forgettable things

4e was much the same, from what I remember.

Now, if you like that, fair. It's a taste. But 5e decided to have a position on the question, and the position it took was that magic items were exceptional things that mattered, without forcing the PCs to need them to function. Attunement was part of the methods they used to succeed at that.

If you don't like what 5e did with magic items, again, it's fair. But that doesn't mean 5e's basic expectation should be changed.
If you don't

Elves

2022-02-05, 12:10 AM

Monty Haul has been breaking games since...well...about day 2 in D&D's history. And the issues are several--

1. If the core game doesn't assume you'll have those items, then having them makes the party well past the normal top range, which makes challenging them nearly impossible while keeping any semblance of sanity. Been there, seen that. Like "fighting 6 gods in a day to get a challenge" kinds of insanity. DM workload increases exponentially and settings fall apart.

Even if the power effects of magic items acquired are each individually 6th level worth, accumulating too much of them your effective power is more than 6th level.
2nd pgph here:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25354985&postcount=57

When using magic items is the better thing to do in every round on a consistent basis than using a class ability or basic any character can do the thing, then you're not really playing a character anymore. You're playing a walking pile of things.
I think that's a fair concern, a few points
- That's only a concern with active-use items, not passive ones.
- Active use items are where removing attunement is least concerning, because there are built-in diminishing returns (you only have so many actions per round) and built-in competition (with your normal abilities, and with any other active use items that use the same action).
- Main action items probably shouldn't be better than class abilities of equivalent level.
- In 3e and 4e, items were mostly minor actions and reactions -- seems like a decent medium where they aren't competing with your main abilities.

In 3.X, [...] Magic items were cheap, banal, forgettable things
4e was much the same, from what I remember.
I don't hate 4e but it was definitely the nadir of interesting item design. As for 3e, here are some of the basic items (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?187851-3-5-Lists-of-Necessary-Magic-Items). Many seem fairly flavorful.

the position it took was that magic items were exceptional things that mattered, without forcing the PCs to need them to function. Attunement was part of the methods they used to succeed at that.
I think we should separate whether magic items should be necessary for characters to function (I agree they shouldn't) from whether there needs to be a 3-item limit.

If you don't like what 5e did with magic items, again, it's fair. But that doesn't mean 5e's basic expectation should be changed.
From my POV, kinda does. :smallwink: I'm interested in what the best solution is.

MoiMagnus

2022-02-05, 05:52 AM

The key question is, in the stories where they don't, why don't they? Because they have a sack full of items but are only allowed to use 3 at a time? Or because in those settings the items are rare and hard to get?

If you want a low-item setting, the 3 item limit is going at it backwards.

Though, that's not really the question I'm personally interested in since attunement doesn't currently contradict my intuition/immersion in D&D for most items.

In my mind, it's works like this, I ask myself the question: "Is the magic used by the object 'clever'?" in any way

No, it's simple reinforcement, (e.g +N weapons are simply weapons reinforced with magic so that they hit harder and pierce through more armour) => No attunement
Yes, but it's mostly self-contain and the object can be used by anyone, not just the one that enabled it (e.g Daern's Instant Fortress, most consumables, etc) => No attunement
Yes, and it affect the whole body of its user (e.g. ring of protection, of elemental resistance, etc) => Attunement required for the magic to synchronise with the whole body.
Yes, and it interact with it's user's mind for some command (e.g. focalisers, or things that would reasonably require some precise commands from the mind, like most objects that allow you to fly) => Attunement required for interacting with one's mind.

And it's not unreasonable to too many magical effects of the third and fourth kind interfere with each other, and that there is a limit of how much you can have without issues. A "the more you have attunement objects, the higher are the chances of having an issue" would have maybe been better, but "3 or less, no issue, 4 or more is impossible" is easier as a game rule (for the same reason than you go from "1 or more HP, no issue, 0 HP and you can't do anything").

NB: there are a few magical objects where my logic disagree with the rule, and yeah, I don't have much to say to defend this. The main examples that come to my mind being:

A lot of magical weapons. Sure, being able to turn this fire sword on/off with your mind will logically require attunement, but that could also be done mechanically, right? Or maybe one could say that it allows the user to not harm themself with the fire of their weapon? IMO every magical weapons requiring attunement should include the "teleport the weapon back to your hand for an Action" to really justify it.
The Artificer's mind sharpener. How is something that helps you concentrating your spell not require attunement?

Peoples are implicitly talking about fantasy story where peoples use plenty of magical objects, and I'm simply curious about if they have examples in fiction where this would correspond to having more than 3 magic objects that would require attunement under D&D logic (and is not an artificer), but in my limited knowledge about fantasy fiction I don't remember any.

Anymage

2022-02-05, 12:53 PM

I agree with him that most fantasy settings are low magic by D&D standards. But if you went up to someone in those settings and gave them a bunch of magic items, they would eagerly use them all.

I agree that if you walked up to pretty much anybody in any universe and handed them a bunch of consequence free power they'd be excited to take it. There are very good narrative reasons why very few settings have consequence free power like that, above and beyond the game related issues. (And by "game related issues" I'm including things like minimizing DM overhead and player disputes over who can best use that shiny magic trinket, which wouldn't be issues in ideal circumstances but very much are when real people get involved.)

I agree with the first two criticisms. But I don't see how having a large number of magic items hurts the game. It may not be everyone's preferred gameplay style. But is it actually a problem?

If someone intentionally wants to have lots of magic and items, the limit is easy enough to strip out.

Compared to fiction, though, magic in stories has a lot of complications that magic in games is hard pressed to match. A character might well turn down a magic item due to its corrupting potential or just because juggling the power of so many items is taxing on their mental bandwidth, and a character in a story saying as much is loading Checkov's gun as opposed to a D&D character mathing out their optimal loading while minimizing the chance of failure. And that's before mentioning that D&D specifically doesn't have much in the way of rules for gradual corruption or general interactions between arbitrary effects. That's not a bad thing. There's a lot to be said for D&D's simplicity and ease of access. But sometimes that does mean a hard if arbitrary line of three attunements instead of something more complex.

Greywander

2022-02-05, 11:59 PM

Okay this thread kind of blew up and I didn't get around to skimming it until now.

Though, that's not really the question I'm personally interested in since attunement doesn't currently contradict my intuition/immersion in D&D for most items.

In my mind, it's works like this, I ask myself the question: "Is the magic used by the object 'clever'?" in any way

No, it's simple reinforcement, (e.g +N weapons are simply weapons reinforced with magic so that they hit harder and pierce through more armour) => No attunement
Yes, but it's mostly self-contain and the object can be used by anyone, not just the one that enabled it (e.g Daern's Instant Fortress, most consumables, etc) => No attunement
Yes, and it affect the whole body of its user (e.g. ring of protection, of elemental resistance, etc) => Attunement required for the magic to synchronise with the whole body.
Yes, and it interact with it's user's mind for some command (e.g. focalisers, or things that would reasonably require some precise commands from the mind, like most objects that allow you to fly) => Attunement required for interacting with one's mind.

And it's not unreasonable to too many magical effects of the third and fourth kind interfere with each other, and that there is a limit of how much you can have without issues. A "the more you have attunement objects, the higher are the chances of having an issue" would have maybe been better, but "3 or less, no issue, 4 or more is impossible" is easier as a game rule (for the same reason than you go from "1 or more HP, no issue, 0 HP and you can't do anything").

NB: there are a few magical objects where my logic disagree with the rule, and yeah, I don't have much to say to defend this. The main examples that come to my mind being:

A lot of magical weapons. Sure, being able to turn this fire sword on/off with your mind will logically require attunement, but that could also be done mechanically, right? Or maybe one could say that it allows the user to not harm themself with the fire of their weapon? IMO every magical weapons requiring attunement should include the "teleport the weapon back to your hand for an Action" to really justify it.
The Artificer's mind sharpener. How is something that helps you concentrating your spell not require attunement?

Peoples are implicitly talking about fantasy story where peoples use plenty of magical objects, and I'm simply curious about if they have examples in fiction where this would correspond to having more than 3 magic objects that would require attunement under D&D logic (and is not an artificer), but in my limited knowledge about fantasy fiction I don't remember any.
This is an interesting way of looking at it. It doesn't explain why a Flame Tongue requires attunement, though. But I could see having a limited number of "body" and "mind" attunement slots. Something else I could see is being able to attune to more items than the cap, but only being able to use a limited number at the same time. So like you toggle between your different attuned items; you have to turn one of your items "off" before you can use a different one.

The idea someone else posted about magic item attunement costing you your highest level spells was also interesting, but not really appropriate for D&D. But I think it's a good example of a system designed around this idea.

I think really what I want is just a system that doesn't seem quite so arbitrary. Like each attuned item reduces max HP by 20, or something (maybe depending on item rarity). That gives me something, if not tangible (HP aren't really tangible), then at least slightly less abstract. It gives me the option to attune to more items, but at a cost. And it gives me reason to unattune from an item I'm not using. Basically, this gives actual consequences for attuning or not attuning, moreso than "I've hit my limit of 3".

Expanding on this, lets say a Common item costs 5 max HP to attune, Uncommon costs 10, Rare costs 15, Very Rare costs 20, and Legendary costs 30. Now we have escalating costs based on rarity, so more common items can still be fit into your loadout without as much of an impact. Also, a weak character simply can't attune to rarer items, due to not having enough HP. Martials have more HP to spend, though they also need HP the most. Mages might be more willing to part with HP in exchange for magic items, but this ends up with them being quite frail.

It's not a perfect alternative, but maybe there might be something else in a similar vein that we could explore.

Kane0

2022-02-06, 12:51 AM

Like physical attunement as opposed to mental attunement? With different classes getting different numbers of each?
If so, that could be both an interesting way of differentiating between classes and a way of subclasses and feats to grant extra attunement without it getting out of hand as fast.

Elves

2022-02-06, 01:46 AM

Expanding on this, lets say a Common item costs 5 max HP to attune, Uncommon costs 10, Rare costs 15, Very Rare costs 20, and Legendary costs 30. Now we have escalating costs based on rarity, so more common items can still be fit into your loadout without as much of an impact. Also, a weak character simply can't attune to rarer items, due to not having enough HP.
I think that's an interesting idea. OTOH, 3e's "Weapons of Legacy" had a similar system -- personal costs for magic items to dissuade you from using too many -- and it was roundly hated.

Kane0

2022-02-06, 02:15 AM

Pex

2022-02-06, 10:45 AM

I think that's an interesting idea. OTOH, 3e's "Weapons of Legacy" had a similar system -- personal costs for magic items to dissuade you from using too many -- and it was roundly hated.

They were hated because they punished you for using them. You suffered penalties that made you vulnerable to enemy attacks, such as a penalty to a saving throw. The concept of a magic weapon that grows in power as you gain levels was fine. People were house ruling such an item long before Weapons of Legacy. Ancestral Relic feat was eventually published as a means to acquire one.

Sigreid

2022-02-06, 02:07 PM

Whether you're actually wearing it or not isn't the point. Why only 3 at a time? It doesn't make sense. You can contrive a reason ("Mystra says so") but it's not intuitive and it's not shared by any fantasy story I've ever heard.

The answer to this may be as simple as someone on the team heard about the rule of 3 in some western mysticism traditions. Though I've usually heard this rule explained as whatever you do with your magic, whether good or ill; will come back on you three fold.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-06, 02:23 PM

The answer to this may be as simple as someone on the team heard about the rule of 3 in some western mysticism traditions. Though I've usually heard this rule explained as whatever you do with your magic, whether good or ill; will come back on you three fold.

They're more likely following the Holy Hand Grenade precedent: 3 shall be the number of your counting...

Kane0

2022-02-06, 02:24 PM

The answer to this may be as simple as someone on the team heard about the rule of 3 in some western mysticism traditions.

Or Planescape.

Sigreid

2022-02-06, 02:34 PM

Or Planescape.

The traditions I'm thinking of predate Planescape by several generations. May even be where Planescape got it if they use it. I have no idea about Planescape.

Greywander

2022-02-06, 02:39 PM

Witty Username

2022-02-06, 02:42 PM

Witty Username

2022-02-06, 02:48 PM

Likewise, if you really do assume that the +X stuff really is supposed to be providing a martial advantage, then making that advantage something that you may never get, disconnected from their character, purely in the hands of the DM, is just... making their power level unreliable, if anything.

Have yet to see a +3 anything armored in any game I have played. The "bandolier of Wands of Magic Missile" exist in a white room or where there's a magic mart, which is not the base game. Have you seen it in AL?

...Ooookay. You haven't ever used the item that I'm talking about the design of. What's your point?

Their rarity, particularly in the armor, if one takes a look at the DMG and the chances of them showing up makes the "+ 3 Shield +3 armor a white room discussion.

Are you agreeing? It looks like you are agreeing.

Elves

2022-02-06, 03:33 PM

They were hated because they punished you for using them. You suffered penalties that made you vulnerable to enemy attacks, such as a penalty to a saving throw. The concept of a magic weapon that grows in power as you gain levels was fine. People were house ruling such an item long before Weapons of Legacy. Ancestral Relic feat was eventually published as a means to acquire one.
The scaling item idea is fine, I was interested by Greywander's suggestion of having 5e magic items that require attunement under current system incur a personal cost instead. They're built in tradeoffs.

If attuning to an item costs max HP or decreases your proficiency bonus, then you'd think you'd need to increase those by default so they start a little higher.
Only if the game were designed with the expectation that you get magic items, but since 5e explicitly isn't, it seems fine to have them come with a tradeoff compared to the base power level.

Sigreid

2022-02-06, 03:34 PM

Attuning one per proficiency bonus point may serve the need. Limiting at low level and less as you level up. Just a thought.

Pex

2022-02-06, 07:00 PM

What if... what if each attuned item decreased your proficiency bonus by 1?

The problem with any of these models is that the game isn't designed with them in mind. If attuning to an item costs max HP or decreases your proficiency bonus, then you'd think you'd need to increase those by default so they start a little higher. Alternatively, you could start with a three item limit, then add a cost to attune more items.

I almost feel like the game would need to have been built from the start to accommodate some kind of cost to attuning magic items. Hacking it in after the fact will probably never result in a satisfactory solution, and by the time you get something that is satisfactory, you'll have changed so much that it won't really be D&D anymore.

So, for the audacity of having a magic item I get -1 to weapon attack, -1 to spell attack, -1 to two saving throws (three if I took resilient, all if a 14th level monk), -1 to skills I'm proficient in (-2 if expertise), -1 to my DC of all spells and/or special class ability attack power, and for some new classes -1 use of a class ability.

No.

Leon

2022-02-06, 07:08 PM

Elves

2022-02-06, 07:10 PM

So, for the audacity of having a magic item I get -1 to weapon attack, -1 to spell attack, -1 to two saving throws (three if I took resilient, all if a 14th level monk), -1 to skills I'm proficient in (-2 if expertise), -1 to my DC of all spells and/or special class ability attack power, and for some new classes -1 use of a class ability.

No.

Hp reduction is more interesting though.

MarkVIIIMarc

2022-02-06, 07:46 PM

If anyone is counting votes, I love the attunement system.

Now it could start at one and raise to 4 with character level like someone said I think.

Someone also had a good idea about attunement points where the more powerful or rare an item was the more it used.

Still for beautifully simple the 3 slots seems about right

Pex

2022-02-06, 09:01 PM

Hp reduction is more interesting though.

No, it's not. We've had this discussion. Do not punish a player for doing what you said he could do. If you think limiting attunement to three items is too limiting, you don't fix it by giving more limitations or penalties.

Elenian

2022-02-06, 10:19 PM

Just to be curious, do you have any fantasy story in mind where a single character (if possible a protagonist) uses:
+ More than 3 magic items
+ Non-consumable ones
+ Which are not "bland" ones (which would correspond to +N objects in D&D, that don't require attunement)
+ Those magic items are used at the same time, or almost so
Bonus point if you find one that would not be an artificer in D&D.

Every fantasy that comes to my mind, it's either "low magic", "didn't have time to get them" or "plot convenience because otherwise the story would be messy" that explains why the protagonist are not stuffed to the teeth with powerful magic items.

Oddly, the Lord of the Rings. Frodo has Sting, a blade of lost Gondolin that glitters when orcs are near and cuts the webs of monstrous spiders; a Mithril-Coat of unsurpassed quality forged beneath the Lonely Mountain for an elven-prince; the Phial of Galadriel, the light of the last free Silmaril trapped forever in the waters of Galadriel's scrying pool; an elven-cloak that protects from wind and weather and hides him from the sight of even the Nazgul, and the One Ring. Some other characters have multiple magic items though usually not more than three (Gandalf has Glamdring, staff, Narya, and Shadowfax who isn't exactly a magic item but fills a similar niche).

loki_ragnarock

2022-02-06, 10:24 PM

So nobody likes a Shadowrun Magic/Cybernetics divide.

How about Exalted's system where in order to use magic items you had to invest from a pool of resources that you would use for other things? In that model you had... well, it was also called essence, but essence was what you used to fuel your inherent magical abilities (charms). Magic items were also fueled by essence, essentially inert until some portion of your pool was invested in them, reducing your pool, and thus limiting your ability to manifest charms.

So... oh, wait. This is headed in the same direction as the other thing. Shoot. It's almost like it's a common theme in RPGs, generally.

But alright, hear me out. There is no pool of resources that every class shares, really, except perhaps hit dice.

So what if attunement based magic items required a certain hp threshhold to power them for the day, requiring you to spend hit dice to reach that threshhold. Like, say, I don't know, 5hp per degree of rarity or something.
But you don't just lose the hp; it serves as a bank, allowing you to drop attunement at any time to regain the number of hp equal to the amount required to power it. Maybe as an action.
It wouldn't be quite as efficient as actually using your hit dice for straight healing, as the hit dice rolled would be effectively rounded down to the nearest five, but it'd make for a more complicated way to adjudicate attunement. It would also gate mucho attunement behind... being higher level.
It would also mildly favor folks with higher hit dice, which I'm basically fine with, since that's usually the folks liable to get hit enough to need to actually spend hit dice for real healing, anyway.
It would also add a random element that I sort of naturally dislike, but sometimes the dice tell stories, and maybe the story that Dan Fighterman couldn't manage to attune to his Armor of Resistance and his Staff of Thunder and Lightning because he just couldn't muster the energy that day could be entertaining.

Leon

2022-02-07, 12:13 AM

S
But alright, hear me out. There is no pool of resources that every class shares, really, except perhaps hit dice.

Hitdice are a whole separate kettle of fish that could be so much more useful than what they are presently

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-07, 01:02 AM

There is a shared resource pool. Attunement slots. :smalltongue:

Psyren

2022-02-07, 02:48 AM

So nobody likes a Shadowrun Magic/Cybernetics divide.

It's not that no one likes it, it's just an odd fit for D&D. In magitech games there is a fantasy around having different ratios and combinations of magic and technology in your build, up to and including going fully one or the other, and the game supports that by making both approaches viable. D&D doesn't really have that because the game doesn't really assume that kind of technology.exists, so past a certain point magic is pretty much your only option.

But alright, hear me out. There is no pool of resources that every class shares, really, except perhaps hit dice.

There is a shared resource pool. Attunement slots. :smalltongue:

The latter was my immediate thought as well.

loki_ragnarock

2022-02-07, 09:04 AM

There is a shared resource pool. Attunement slots. :smalltongue:

I'm aware, and I actually prefer that simplicity.

OP asked for alternatives to that set up.

MoiMagnus

2022-02-07, 09:37 AM

Oddly, the Lord of the Rings. Frodo has Sting, a blade of lost Gondolin that glitters when orcs are near and cuts the webs of monstrous spiders; a Mithril-Coat of unsurpassed quality forged beneath the Lonely Mountain for an elven-prince; the Phial of Galadriel, the light of the last free Silmaril trapped forever in the waters of Galadriel's scrying pool; an elven-cloak that protects from wind and weather and hides him from the sight of even the Nazgul, and the One Ring. Some other characters have multiple magic items though usually not more than three (Gandalf has Glamdring, staff, Narya, and Shadowfax who isn't exactly a magic item but fills a similar niche).

So for Frodo in D&D:
+ Sting would indeed require attunement.
+ The Mithril Coat most likely would not require attunement (you could argue for it to be magic on top of being of Mithral, but in which case that would just be a +N kind of magic)
+ The Phial of Galadriel could have attunement, but you could argue for no attunement either (like the lantern of revealings in D&D).
+ The Elven Cloack would indeed require attunement.
+ The One Ring would indeed require attunement.

So yeah, it's fair to say that Frodo has 4 attuned objects (though 3 is arguable too). Thanks for the example.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-07, 10:43 AM

I'm aware, and I actually prefer that simplicity.

OP asked for alternatives to that set up.

I was mostly just being snarky.

Anymage

2022-02-07, 11:31 AM

How about Exalted's system where in order to use magic items you had to invest from a pool of resources that you would use for other things? In that model you had... well, it was also called essence, but essence was what you used to fuel your inherent magical abilities (charms). Magic items were also fueled by essence, essentially inert until some portion of your pool was invested in them, reducing your pool, and thus limiting your ability to manifest charms.

In 3e Exalted, the items that require only token attunement costs are items that in 5e D&D wouldn't require attunement at all. The impressive items that would require 5e attunement also require investing XP into the item to unlock further abilities.

I wouldn't mind something like this or the Earthdawn system, where in order to access more than just the baseline powers of an item you have to invest XP likely story time as well. But investing XP into an object in order to make it stronger works best in a system where XP gets spent directly on stats instead of a class/level based system like D&D. And adventures to upgrade your loot might be counterproductive if it means that when you first find the item it's weak and underwhelming for your level/compared to what you're currently using. So these are good ideas, but not ones that fit into D&D well.

But alright, hear me out. There is no pool of resources that every class shares, really, except perhaps hit dice...

If HD can be spent on anything other than healing yourself, you encourage spending HD on more active purposes and looking somewhere else to pick up the healing slack. At best this means carrying around a swimming pool's worth of healing potions in your bag of holding. At worst this means pressuring someone to be the healbot. Everybody should have some selfheal capabilities built in.

A token cost to max HP would not be a bad drawback to an item in a system where more items had baked in tradeoffs. That would limit christmas trees, but you'd need to be very careful to avoid making loot too cumbersome to use. Even then, there's something to be said for attunement slots to also limit the number of highly complex and/or character defining items someone is carrying around on them.

Edit: Based on this thread I made this new thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?642315-What-are-good-magic-item-drawbacks&p=25357228#post25357228). Entirely tangential to the idea of attunement, I think there's a fair amount of room for items to come with a catch that falls short of making the item properly cursed.

Burley

2022-02-07, 11:41 AM

But alright, hear me out. There is no pool of resources that every class shares, really, except perhaps hit dice.

This is pretty similar to the idea I had, but using "Hit Dice" instead of "Character Level."
I wouldn't reduce a player's HP, though, for the same reason I'm against it affecting spell slots: A fighter wouldn't want to sacrifice their health to put on armor that's supposed to protect their health.

I do, though, enjoy the idea of a middle ground, where magic items have a numeric value (1-5, say) and equipping that item reduces the number of Hit Dice you have for healing during short rests (or, I guess, Fighter's Second Wind). It's not a crippling punishment that you'll feel constantly, but its enough to make you wonder if your party can heal by other means.
Magic takes a toll on the body, as a being's life itself fuels magic. Wizards meticulously apportion their energies each day and Sorcerers draw from an internal wellspring until exhaustion. An item imbued with magical properties, likewise, pulls energy from its wielder life energy, subtly decreasing the owners ability to recover.

CapnWildefyr

2022-02-10, 09:37 AM

Burley

2022-02-10, 12:14 PM

What if you gain an extra attunement slot if you gain X levels in a single class, say +1 at 9 levels, +1 more at 16? The slot can only be for something class-related, so it's relevant to your skill set. That way, you get more slots, but it's tied to expertise in a field, not just having not died through X adventures.

Personally, I'm not convinced the limit is a bad one, but if you want to homebrew an expansion, why not keep it thematic?

The Artificer has this ability (4 slots at 10th, 5 at 14th, 6 at 18th). It very much a signature ability of Artificers, so, it wouldn't do to pass it on to every class. I think that's the impetus for creating a new mechanic: giving characters more attunement slots makes the Artificer less special.

PhantomSoul

2022-02-10, 12:20 PM

The Artificer has this ability (4 slots at 10th, 5 at 14th, 6 at 18th). It very much a signature ability of Artificers, so, it wouldn't do to pass it on to every class. I think that's the impetus for creating a new mechanic: giving characters more attunement slots makes the Artificer less special.

Hm... so if the solution is to not have Artificers exist as a class... there's still a solution!

Leon

2022-02-10, 06:04 PM

The Artificer has this ability (4 slots at 10th, 5 at 14th, 6 at 18th). It very much a signature ability of Artificers, so, it wouldn't do to pass it on to every class. I think that's the impetus for creating a new mechanic: giving characters more attunement slots makes the Artificer less special.

The artificer only has the ability to have more slots than another class so if the other classes get more slots the Artificer has more innately anyway

Pex

2022-02-10, 11:50 PM

The Artificer has more slots because many of his infusions cost attunement. The Artificer is about making his own magic items or objects similar enough. He can make the infusions for others. He has the extra slots so the player can benefit from the class without losing out on whatever nice treasure the DM provides as a matter of playing the game. Despite having more attunement slots he never has enough.

KorvinStarmast

2022-02-11, 03:09 PM

So for Frodo in D&D:
+ Sting would indeed require attunement.
Nope. Simple +1 Short Sword or Dagger, or, something like a 5e moon touched ... not +1 and Common rarity, no attunement req.

+ The Mithril Coat most likely would not require attunement Concur

+ The Phial of Galadriel could have attunement, but you could argue for no attunement either (like the lantern of revealings in D&D).
+ The Elven Cloack would indeed require attunement.
+ The One Ring would indeed require attunement.
OK, and for sure the last two, although Sam used the Phial even though Galadriel didn't git it to him as a gift ...

So yeah, it's fair to say that Frodo has 4 attuned objects (though 3 is arguable too). Thanks for the example. Three, not four.

Elves

2022-02-12, 04:27 AM

At that point, Korvin, you could just say any item over 3 that a character has is one that wouldn't require attunement. Question starts to be in bad faith.

The point isn't to find examples of characters who have more than 3 magic items, it's to ask, for those who have 3 or fewer, why is that? Is it because they have a whole sack of items but can't use more than 3 at a time? Or is it because magic items in that setting are rare and valuable? If so, the way to create that outcome, if you want to, is to give out fewer items. The way 5e items are designed means that's something you can actually do with no trouble.

OK, and for sure the last two, although Sam used the Phial even though Galadriel didn't git it to him as a gift ...
Another example of how attunement messes with storytelling. Your comrade has fallen, you pick up their magic item as the foe rears above you and..it does nothing.
At the very least attuning should be changed to a single action. It's still not something you'd do in combat unless forced -- wasting an action is big. But that way it's not clunky.

Psyren

2022-02-12, 09:16 AM

Another example of how attunement messes with storytelling. Your comrade has fallen, you pick up their magic item as the foe rears above you and..it does nothing.
At the very least attuning should be changed to a single action. It's still not something you'd do in combat unless forced -- wasting an action is big. But that way it's not clunky.

You keep complaining about features as though they're bugs. Yes, some items shouldn't be immediately usable by you if your comrade falls, that's a balancing point for those items in 5e. If you want to remove attunement from those items that's fine.

Elves

2022-02-12, 02:37 PM

Pex

2022-02-12, 05:28 PM

To be clear, the question of whether hard-cap-style attunement is necessary is different from the question of how long attuning should take, if it exists.

Making attunement take a single action instead of an hour makes the system far less clunky IMO. It's a big enough cost that it will rarely happen in combat, but allows item choice happen on a tactical timescale if it needs to. And it lets the system simulate scenes that it can't currently, like the phial of Galadriel scene mentioned above.

This I can agree with. It allows for gadgeteering. It's useful for fortunate warriors who have two magic weapons that do little extra elemental damage or specialized against a creature type. If a creature is immune to the element may want to switch to the other one, whatever it is. Useful for circumstantial changes. Walking near a lake the party is attacked by something in the water. The heavy armor warrior would want to spend an action to put on a ring of water breathing to go into the lake and fight what's there. If this was allowed then keeping attunement at three items would need to stay. Without that limit there'd be no point to having the rule change.

Psyren

2022-02-12, 05:34 PM

I don't mind Action-Attunement if there's a sufficient drawback associated. Like maybe a level of exhaustion. That gets you those clutch "my squire grabbed my holy avenger as I fell" moments, but still makes attuning to those items momentous. (Again, needing a short rest to attune to something that needs attunement is part of how those items are balanced.)

Unoriginal

2022-02-12, 05:34 PM

Making attunement take a single action instead of an hour makes the system far less clunky IMO.

It makes the system allow juggling attuned magic items mid-fight, though.

Psyren

2022-02-12, 06:07 PM

It makes the system allow juggling attuned magic items mid-fight, though.

This is a big reason why I want a drawback associated. Juggling items can quickly kill you if exhaustion gets involved.

Elves

2022-02-12, 06:08 PM

Wasting an action in combat is the significant drawback.

Psyren

2022-02-12, 06:18 PM

Wasting an action in combat is the significant drawback.

That's not nearly significant enough. If a given item saves your life (say, a Rod of Absorption or a Scarab of Protection), you'd have lost that action anyway by not attuning to it, so in actuality the "cost" of an action is no cost at all.

PhantomSoul

2022-02-12, 06:24 PM

That's not nearly significant enough. If a given item saves your life (say, a Rod of Absorption or a Scarab of Protection), you'd have lost that action anyway by not attuning to it, so in actuality the "cost" of an action is no cost at all.

Agreed overall -- plus being able to change up your attunement items so freely in combat isn't really what I want to see; it effectively reduces the importance of choices and means versatile vs. context-specific items treat how widely useful they are as less of a selling point. On top of that, it seems to me far less narratively pleasant: you need to discover/learn this new item, and a rest gives you the time to do that. (I'd see some sentient items as being able to attune differently, but that just seems fitting for sentient items and is already applicable to how I'd run the game without that action option... if anything, the sentient items that "break" the rule then become less interesting and obviously special.)

A middle ground could be that some items have both attunement-requiring and non-attunement-requiring benefits, but that seems like a bit separate of a question.

Elves

2022-02-12, 06:29 PM

That's not nearly significant enough. If a given item saves your life (say, a Rod of Absorption or a Scarab of Protection), you'd have lost that action anyway by not attuning to it, so in actuality the "cost" of an action is no cost at all.

In those cases you have to anticipate beforehand whether to activate the item, and at that point you have to choose to do that instead of taking another action.

And you don't know beforehand whether the item will result in a net action gain. You could succeed on the save, the action you take instead could disable a key opponent, the opponent you're worried about could cast their spell at someone else or take a different action, etc.

Plus, I think you're missing the point -- if you were attuned to that scarab to begin with, you wouldn't have to pay the action tax for switching to it; its benefit would be automatic. You're paying a substantial action tax for choosing to have that flexibility on the side instead of making it your default.

it effectively reduces the importance of choices
Your pre-combat choices are still important. Paying an action to switch in combat is really bad. In rare cases, it will be a worthwhile tradeoff. That's good -- it adds tactical depth, which the game needs more of.

KorvinStarmast

2022-02-12, 06:42 PM

Are you agreeing? It looks like you are agreeing. I am not agreeing that +3 armor needs to be attuned, no.

At that point, Korvin, you could just say any item over 3 that a character has is one that wouldn't require attunement.
Hardly. Comparing to like rarity items in the game is what I did. Also, Tolkien didn't use attunement slots, that concept post dates his stories by about 80 years. :smalltongue:

The point isn't to find examples of characters who have more than 3 magic items, it's to ask, for those who have 3 or fewer, why is that? Are you talking about in play, or in a book? Conan didn't have a lot of magic items. Elric had an artifact.

Another example of how attunement messes with storytelling. Your comrade has fallen, you pick up their magic item as the foe rears above you and..it does nothing.

At the very least attuning should be changed to a single action. It's still not something you'd do in combat unless forced -- wasting an action is big. But that way it's not clunky. You seem to be needlessly narrowing your narrative references to a pin hole width.

Kane0

2022-02-12, 07:41 PM

My gith sorcerer foghting mind flayers has a ring of mind shielding that has been invaluble, unfortunately i missed the attunement part in a rookie mistake and have been using it to temporarily place on other subjugated creatures to break telepathic control.
Once the DM and I realized our mistake we decided to keep it as we were playing it for narrative reasons but did concur that it was a bit too strong without that hour to take effect on the recipient.

Pex

2022-02-12, 08:04 PM

This is a big reason why I want a drawback associated. Juggling items can quickly kill you if exhaustion gets involved.

The idea is juggling magic items is the whole point feature so applying punishment to do it defeats the purpose. It's fine if you don't like the idea, but if you don't like it don't have it. Don't be passive aggressive allowing it but make the player regret doing it how dare he.

Elves

2022-02-12, 08:45 PM

Are you talking about in play, or in a book?
I mean in a story outside the game.

You seem to be needlessly narrowing your narrative references to a pin hole width.
That's a scene you brought up dude.

Psyren

2022-02-12, 09:38 PM

In those cases you have to anticipate beforehand whether to activate the item, and at that point you have to choose to do that instead of taking another action.

You can do that outside of combat too though. "There's a guy with robes in the next room" "gimme a sec to attune my Absorption Rod, then kick in the door." Not needing an hour suddenly makes that item much stronger. It's poorly thought out.

PhantomSoul

2022-02-12, 09:55 PM

You can do that outside of combat too though. "There's a guy with robes in the next room" "gimme a sec to attune my Absorption Rod, then kick in the door." Not needing an hour suddenly makes that item much stronger. It's poorly thought out.

And that attunement suddenly becomes (well, non-suddenly remains :P) more of a decision: can you wait that hour? Is there too much risk of getting caught? Should you sneak somewhere safer? Plus it gives a short rest opportunity (insert grumbles about WOTC abandoning short rests and making short-rest classes worse along with it) and/or a chance for the party to do other things (scouting, spying, spellcasting, preparations, ...).

PhantomSoul

2022-02-13, 12:02 AM

Is there are a reason PCs shouldn't be able to enter encounters with their desired item loadout, assuming they don't get jumped/surprised?

In this situation they'll try to take that hour off to switch items anyway, which just makes it boring and weird for everyone. If they have more items than they can use, the least you can do is let them start encounters with the ones they want.

...It sounds kind of snarky, but why? The at-the-table time is marginal if the swap takes an hour (two in current rules IIRC, but I'd be up for one hour), frankly giving opportunities for short rests is a good thing and helps fix some major balance issues that can come up across classes, and that gives some actual consideration to the item swap (as noted in the post before yours).

They chose which items to be attuned to, the least you can do is make that decision at least sometimes relevant! :)

Pex

2022-02-13, 12:04 AM

You can do that outside of combat too though. "There's a guy with robes in the next room" "gimme a sec to attune my Absorption Rod, then kick in the door." Not needing an hour suddenly makes that item much stronger. It's poorly thought out.

That's a matter of taste for tolerance of power level. If you have an Absorption Rod and that's not one of your already three attuned items, then you're carrying a lot of powerful items. At that power level switching to an Absorption Rod as an action to deal with the spellcaster in the next room is par for the course. The issue is with the power level of the magic items, not the hypothetical rule of switching.

Elves

2022-02-13, 12:31 AM

You can do that outside of combat too though. "There's a guy with robes in the next room" "gimme a sec to attune my Absorption Rod, then kick in the door." Not needing an hour suddenly makes that item much stronger. It's poorly thought out.

Is there a reason PCs shouldn't be able to enter encounters with their desired item loadout, assuming they don't get jumped/surprised?

In this situation they'll try to take that hour off to switch items anyway, which just makes it boring and weird for everyone. If they have more items than they can use, the least you can do is let them start encounters with the ones they want.

They chose which items to be attuned to, the least you can do is make that decision at least sometimes relevant! :)
An action in combat is very relevant. The only time it's worth switching is if you have an item that's especially suited for the enemy in front of you -- which is presumably why you would have such an item and when you'd want to use it.

What's more fun:
"You get ambushed by the snake guy. Yes you have a sword of snake beheading in your pack but you didn't attune to it, because you had no reason to. Tough luck. Guess that item will never get used."
"You get ambushed by the snake guy. He hits you for a bunch of damage. You remember the sword of snake beheading you got five levels ago and pull it out. He hits you again, you're low on health. The sword glows and cuts off his head."

In Psyren's door scenario, the point is that either way, the PCs want to change their attunement, and in most cases they can do so regardless. The argument would have to be that "Even though PCs can usually change attunes between encounters, it's too powerful for them to be able to do so in the subset of cases where a plot-based time bomb prevents them from taking a short rest". That doesn't seem like a good hill to defend. Item flexibility is unrelated to the short rest resource pool, so there's no reason swapping items more frequently than you short rest is a problem. And the point of the attunement mechanic is to cap how much power a PC can get from items at any one time. Swap flexibility only impairs that if it allows you to effectively bypass the limit (the way free swapping at any time would). There isn't even an inherent problem with, eg, letting you change your attunes as a free action at the start of every turn -- it just probably complicates gameplay too much, and creates less tactical choice than the action cost solution (whereas that solution creates more tactical choice than the current rule).

PhantomSoul

2022-02-13, 12:50 AM

An action in combat is very relevant. The only time it's worth switching is if you have an item that's especially suited for the enemy in front of you -- which is presumably why you would have such an item and when you'd want to use it.

What's more fun:
"You get ambushed by the snake guy. Yes you have a sword of snake beheading in your pack but you didn't attune to it, because you had no reason to. Tough luck. Guess that item will never get used."
"You get ambushed by the snake guy. He hits you for a bunch of damage. You remember the sword of snake beheading you got five levels ago and pull it out. He hits you again, you're low on health. The sword glows and cuts off his head."

In Psyren's door scenario, the point is that either way, the PCs want to change their attunement, and in most cases they can do so regardless. The argument would have to be that "Even though PCs can usually change attunes between encounters, it's too powerful for them to be able to do so in the subset of cases where a plot-based time bomb prevents them from taking a short rest". That doesn't seem like a good hill to defend. Item flexibility is unrelated to the short rest resource pool, so there's no reason swapping items more frequently than you short rest is a problem. And the point of the attunement mechanic is to cap how much power a PC can get from items at any one time. Swap flexibility only impairs that if it allows you to effectively bypass the limit (the way free swapping at any time would). There isn't even an inherent problem with, eg, letting you change your attunes as a free action at the start of every turn -- it just probably complicates gameplay too much, and creates less tactical choice than the action cost solution (whereas that solution creates more tactical choice than the current rule).

I think there are two main reasons why your version really doesn't sound more fun to me, aside from it making item choices feel less relevant overall:
1) You're really just turning the items into Action-Cast Buff Spells, where you have three "Item Concentration" Slots. Meh. I'd prefer things to feel more different. (Not that I don't have issues with spells, but making items just be another hat put onto spells you can also interchange at a moment's notice doesn't appeal to me at all.)
2) I don't find your example satisfying, actually. Great, you have the item... but really, you've been rewarded that you happened to have a win-button item. It would be more satisfying if it felt like you'd earned it: maybe you actually researched what threats are in this area and you chose to invest a precious slot on it (After all, it isn't just a win-button spell, like in 1!); or maybe you encountered one of these creatures earlier and went "OH NO, THAT ITEM I'VE BEEN LUGGING AROUND COULD HELP!" and you made it out alive (whether killing the creature or fleeing) and you actually learned from that and chose to attune to the item while in the area, whether to fight the creature again or in case of another one. Just spinning the rollodex of items doesn't seem satisfying or interesting to me, and it just seems like it's reducing the interest and importance of item choices.

I guess we have different playstyles and/or different ideals for what the game or rewarding satisfaction is. Your seems quite the opposite of the tactical choice you describe to me; people cast action buff spells, and turning the item into just another action buff spell doesn't seem rewarding or thrilling to me when it's effectively removing a case where the game actually doesn't feel same-y!

Kane0

2022-02-13, 12:59 AM

It strikes me that if we already proposing changes to attunement like scaling number of attunements with proficiency bonus and particularly powerful gear taking up multiple attunement spaces, we could also apply a split for attunement to require a long rest, short rest or action.
It would be another interesting facet to the dynamic rather than just rarity + binary attunement yes/no.

Witty Username

2022-02-13, 01:16 AM

1!); or maybe you encountered one of these creatures earlier and went "OH NO, THAT ITEM I'VE BEEN LUGGING AROUND COULD HELP!" and you made it out alive (whether killing the creature or fleeing) and you actually learned from that and chose to attune to the item while in the area, whether to fight the creature again or in case of another one.
Eh, I personally find that play pattern ends up, player panics, changes attunement, and that was the only creature in the area resulting in a screwy load out for several encounters. Not to say I am against attunement as it is, I just don't think this is the draw about it.

I feel like this ties into rest rules. If your play group likes the idea of action attunement, then 5 min short rest may be what your group is looking for. If 5 min short rest sounds heretical, stick with normal attunement.

Angelalex242

2022-02-13, 01:54 AM

Waterdeep Merch

2022-02-13, 10:57 AM

I'm going to have a fresh session zero for an ongoing campaign of mine here soon, and one of the topics of discussion will be attunement. My players really hate the cap limit in our magic-heavy game. So far, the two potential changes we've been bandying about are:

1.) Magic weapons and armor don't require attunement.
2.) Attunement slots are equal to your proficiency bonus.

The former will empower martials without giving too much to casters, while the latter helps everybody equally, and scales to prevent early abuses. The latter will lead to late game shenanigans for everyone, the former will let martials switch hit with magic weapons to suit the circumstance.

Technically both can be done, but I'm hesitant on that option. Not sure if that's just too much power to account for on my end.

Pex

2022-02-13, 10:58 AM

Eh, I personally find that play pattern ends up, player panics, changes attunement, and that was the only creature in the area resulting in a screwy load out for several encounters. Not to say I am against attunement as it is, I just don't think this is the draw about it.

I feel like this ties into rest rules. If your play group likes the idea of action attunement, then 5 min short rest may be what your group is looking for. If 5 min short rest sounds heretical, stick with normal attunement.

Doesn't work. 5 minute short rest has more impact on the game than merely the ability to attune to a magic item. If item switching is to be allowed an action is fine.

Equating it to a buff spell is one interpretation, but that is rather the point of allowing item switching at all. If you don't like it you don't like it, so no amount of 'fixing it' will work to your liking. Anything that at least makes you tolerant of it will destroy the purpose of wanting and using it.

Eh.

I think some attunement items should have a level cap, of sorts.

"This item requires attunement till you are Tier 3, then it does not."

This is to make attunement items like rings of jumping stick around on PCs, where they'd otherwise collect dust in someone's bag of holding.

That can work. This could be a side bar thing of different ways of handling it depending on DM preference and campaign. For example, other ideas could be item no longer requires attunement after 3 game world months of use or having it attuned for 2 levels of use. This would be for common and uncommon items. Maybe a rare item could qualify, but I'm not fighting hard on that. Very rare and legendary should always require attunement for those items that require attunement.

Segev

2022-02-13, 11:33 AM

Page 141 of the DMG has a table of minor properties a magic item might have. Number 7 is "harmonious." Harmonious items are attuned in only one minute.

So we have both a cannon means of getting some items to attune more quickly, and also an idea of how powerful 5e considers that feature.

Also, I like the idea of items that require attunement until you hit a certain level/tier. It seems to me that attunement is also used to make a half-step in item power between rarity ratings: an uncommon item that requires attunement is better than an uncommon item that does not, while it isn't as good as a rare item that doesn't require attunement.

In the spirit of 5e, maybe higher level characters can get bonus attunement slots that only work with particular rarities. Maybe at tier 2, they gain a bonus attunement slot that can only be used for uncommon items. Tier three: a bonus attunement slot that can only be used for an uncommon or rare item. Tier four: a bonus slot good for up to Very Rare.

Alternatively, replace attunement slots with attunement points. Maybe a number of points equal to proficiency bonus, or twice proficiency bonus. This would require the items to be reconsidered and given a number of points that take. So much more work. I think the first option will adapt into games more easily.

Finally, you could just up the rarity of an item to remove attunement from it.

Greywander

2022-02-13, 01:03 PM

Eh.

I think some attunement items should have a level cap, of sorts.

"This item requires attunement till you are Tier 3, then it does not."

This is to make attunement items like rings of jumping stick around on PCs, where they'd otherwise collect dust in someone's bag of holding.

That can work. This could be a side bar thing of different ways of handling it depending on DM preference and campaign. For example, other ideas could be item no longer requires attunement after 3 game world months of use or having it attuned for 2 levels of use. This would be for common and uncommon items. Maybe a rare item could qualify, but I'm not fighting hard on that. Very rare and legendary should always require attunement for those items that require attunement.

Also, I like the idea of items that require attunement until you hit a certain level/tier. It seems to me that attunement is also used to make a half-step in item power between rarity ratings: an uncommon item that requires attunement is better than an uncommon item that does not, while it isn't as good as a rare item that doesn't require attunement.
An easy way to do this is by tiers. Starting in tier 2 (5th+ level), common items don't take up attunement slots*. In tier 3 (11th+ level), uncommon items don't take up attunement slots. In tier 4 (17th+ level), rare items don't take up attunement slots. You do still have to attune to the item, but it doesn't count against the cap.

*I really hate that common items take up attunement slots anyway. Common items are usually very weak, being mostly flavorful items. They would be fun to use, but not worth giving up a slot that could be filled by literally anything else. Removing attunement limits from common items early on would be a good compromise, so even if no other changes are made to the attunement system, I would still recommend doing something like this for common items specifically.

One potential problem with this is that there are a lot of good but not OP uncommon and rare items, and players could potentially stack them up. But... is that really a problem? This could allow e.g. every player to get a Ring or Cloak of Protection... but only if you make those available to the players. And if you do make those available, wouldn't it be because you want them to use them?

I think this argument could be used against having an attunement cap at all. If you don't want players to get absurdly powerful, simply don't hand out too many magic items. Where attunement does help is with inexperienced DMs who hand out too many magic items and don't know how to deal with it afterwards.

In the spirit of 5e, maybe higher level characters can get bonus attunement slots that only work with particular rarities. Maybe at tier 2, they gain a bonus attunement slot that can only be used for uncommon items. Tier three: a bonus attunement slot that can only be used for an uncommon or rare item. Tier four: a bonus slot good for up to Very Rare.
I suggested something similar earlier, but it might have gotten lost in the noise. Extra slots that only work for certain rarities or lower. It gives you a reason to keep a less rare item around, and still makes such items useful even at high levels when you have much more powerful items.

Finally, you could just up the rarity of an item to remove attunement from it.
This is also a decent idea, and is naturally self-limiting in that legendary items don't have a step up to go to (unless you count artifact as a separate rarity), and thus always require attunement. And also, you can expect a rarer item to be harder to find or craft, or more expensive to buy if your setting has a magic mart. It does run into a similar issue of eventually getting and using all the good items of lesser rarity, but it differs from the above option in that you actually have to find a different version of that magic item that is more rare, rather than just waiting until you're a higher level.

TBH, this is probably the best option, since it still relies on the DM to hand out an attunement-less version of a magic item. That said, I think it would be neat if there was a way to take the normal item and upgrade it to be attunement-less. Or, possibly, to be permanently attuned to the character such that it doesn't use a slot but can't be unattuned or attuned by someone else (there might be a process to break the attunement, such as killing the person and then destroying the item while they're dead, or keeping it in an anti-magic field for X hours/days/weeks). These permanently attuned items essentially become a feature of the character. Possibly some narrative implications for something like that.

Psyren

2022-02-13, 03:31 PM

And that attunement suddenly becomes (well, non-suddenly remains :P) more of a decision: can you wait that hour? Is there too much risk of getting caught? Should you sneak somewhere safer? Plus it gives a short rest opportunity (insert grumbles about WOTC abandoning short rests and making short-rest classes worse along with it) and/or a chance for the party to do other things (scouting, spying, spellcasting, preparations, ...).

Exactly.

The idea is juggling magic items is the whole point feature so applying punishment to do it defeats the purpose. It's fine if you don't like the idea, but if you don't like it don't have it. Don't be passive aggressive allowing it but make the player regret doing it how dare he.

A single level of exhaustion for bypassing a restriction is not a big punishment; it's enough to make choosing between the regular attunement time and the faster time a true tradeoff. Especially at higher tiers, where you can simply wipe that "punishment" away with a 5th-level spell slot and a bit of gold. But it's enough that you won't want to do this more than once between such removals.

That's a matter of taste for tolerance of power level. If you have an Absorption Rod and that's not one of your already three attuned items, then you're carrying a lot of powerful items. At that power level switching to an Absorption Rod as an action to deal with the spellcaster in the next room is par for the course. The issue is with the power level of the magic items, not the hypothetical rule of switching.

You don't have to be swimming in items for this choice to be relevant; for example, you might not have the rod attuned because it's attuned to someone else in the party. Attuning as an action means that items can be passed around even mid-fight; attunement items were not balanced around that being an option.

Page 141 of the DMG has a table of minor properties a magic item might have. Number 7 is "harmonious." Harmonious items are attuned in only one minute.

So we have both a cannon means of getting some items to attune more quickly, and also an idea of how powerful 5e considers that feature.

Indeed, and this is further support for the idea that WotC definitely didn't want attuning during combat to be a thing even in high-powered games.

In the spirit of 5e, maybe higher level characters can get bonus attunement slots that only work with particular rarities. Maybe at tier 2, they gain a bonus attunement slot that can only be used for uncommon items. Tier three: a bonus attunement slot that can only be used for an uncommon or rare item. Tier four: a bonus slot good for up to Very Rare.

Alternatively, replace attunement slots with attunement points. Maybe a number of points equal to proficiency bonus, or twice proficiency bonus. This would require the items to be reconsidered and given a number of points that take. So much more work. I think the first option will adapt into games more easily.

My hesitation here is that it buffs everyone, spellcasters included. If I were to just give more attunement slots I would want martials to benefit more somehow.

Finally, you could just up the rarity of an item to remove attunement from it.

I like this idea as it gives the GM full control of whether an attunement-free version of X even exists, and if they're generating items randomly, the odds of one dropping into their game and causing issues is reduced.

Kane0

2022-02-13, 03:31 PM

Page 141 of the DMG has a table of minor properties a magic item might have. Number 7 is "harmonious." Harmonious items are attuned in only one minute.

So we have both a cannon means of getting some items to attune more quickly, and also an idea of how powerful 5e considers that feature.

Aha, I had a feeling there would be something hidden away.

I think for my next game I will test out attunement slots = prof bonus, and add new variables to the 'statblocks' of magic items.

Rarity
Attunement (0-3)
Attune Time (1 min, 1 hour or 1 day)

Im thinking to start with consumables and +1 gear with no other benefits will require 0 attunement, and on the upper end +2 and +3 gear with additional powers will require 3 attunement. That gives a spectrum where the really powerful items are too strong to use early in a characters career and at the same time as your characer progresses they need to balance number vs power of the items they attune to, with some being able to be hotswapped faster than others.
Lots more interesting decisions to be made in high magic games in both the long and short term.