Ioun Stones requiring attunement is missing the point of the items.

[Segev]

Ioun stones have always been expensive and vulnerable items with a lot of potential benefits they can grant. Their big draw is that you can theoretically have a cloud of them and not have to worry about whether you have too many rings or if you have to take off your amulet to use them. Their drawbacks, aside from being expensive (in 3.5, as expensive as a magic coin that would do the same thing from the safety of a hidden pocket inside your armor, no less), are how obvious they are floating around your noggin and the fact they have special rules for how to have them stolen, even (or especially) mid-combat.

In 5e, attunement replaces body slot limits. So making Ioun Stones require attunement is the equivalent of making them take, say, your headband or hat slot in 3.5. This also means that using all your attunements on Ioun Stones gets you a maximum of three. While I know of no specific builds from 3e or earlier that had clouds, most art depicting Ioun Stones has more than three flying about the depicted character's head.

I think there is also room for arguing they should be cheaper than generic slotless items in 3.5, but for this thread and sub forum, what do people think about simply removing the attunement requirement from Ioun Stones in 5e? Are the so powerful that that would break the game? I personally think they are at a rarity level such that a DM handing them out could control their distribution sufficiently that they don't need it, especially with the rules for snatching them away.

[Amnestic]

Yeah the attunement requirement means that the old aesthetic of a 3 or more stones floating around your head isn't as viable as it used to be. I wouldn't say no to dropping attunement on them. One potentially clunky alternative might be that once you've attuned to one stone, the next [1/2/3/X] stones you 'attune' to don't take up a slot, letting you put a few items into a single attunement slot, but only if they're all ioun stones.

...I'd also kinda like a way to 'recharge' the absorption stones as well so they don't permanently burn themselves out forever.

[MoiMagnus]

I love the concept of attunement. But I feel like the design team didn't really know what they wanted to do with it and as such some items require or not attunement in pretty arbitrary ways, or with unwanted consequences on the balance between them.

In my opinion, an attuned object should be fundamentally linked to its user, potentially to the point of the "returning" property being standard for them. As such, putting attunement on an object that has for main flaws of "the enemy can steal it" is absurd to me.

Though I'm generally unconvinced by the "ability score improving" magical items of 5e, and find them badly designed (except maybe the belt of dwarvenkind, but it's kind of an odd one), so yeah, I don't like 5e's Ioun Stones.

[Segev]

Mechanically, I think attunement is just the new 'item slots.' Instead of tracking two rings, one pair of gloves, hat, headband, face, boots, etc., you have three attuned items. Items without attunement are the equivalent of slotless items from 3e.

I agree that there is some room for it to be used to represent a special connection, something that lets the user's nature shine through or identify its master. Ironically, a broom of flying should require attunement by that standard, and arguably that might make it a more balanced item, given its rarity.

The third thing it does is serve as the limiter on who can use it. Aside from scrolls, which have that built in, items limited by class or race require attunement by particular kinds of characters, such as the various staves that require attunement by spellcaster. When the staff or other item is one that should be limited as if it were a slotted item, that works well. But sometimes, those items aren't really worth limiting in that way. Having use limitations rather than attunement limitations may be wiser in some cases.

The stat boosting items of 5e struck me as terrible ideas when I first saw them, encouraging dumping the stat you hoped to get them for. But the attunement cost is sharp, so really it is only the belts of giant strength that make that painful choice happen, and them only because they are the only way to break the cap before level 20. And thus you either build a weakling as if he were a strength build and hope the DM gives you the belt you want, or you feel like you wasted that strength-up investment. I honestly think the Belts should require a minimum Strength score to me able to attune them. Maybe a 20 to attune a Belt of Storm Giant Strength, a 19 for a Belt of Cloud Giant Strength, etc.

[Unoriginal]

Ioun stones have always been expensive and vulnerable items with a lot of potential benefits they can grant. Their big draw is that you can theoretically have a cloud of them and not have to worry about whether you have too many rings or if you have to take off your amulet to use them. Their drawbacks, aside from being expensive (in 3.5, as expensive as a magic coin that would do the same thing from the safety of a hidden pocket inside your armor, no less), are how obvious they are floating around your noggin and the fact they have special rules for how to have them stolen, even (or especially) mid-combat.

In 5e, attunement replaces body slot limits. So making Ioun Stones require attunement is the equivalent of making them take, say, your headband or hat slot in 3.5. This also means that using all your attunements on Ioun Stones gets you a maximum of three. While I know of no specific builds from 3e or earlier that had clouds, most art depicting Ioun Stones has more than three flying about the depicted character's head.

I think there is also room for arguing they should be cheaper than generic slotless items in 3.5, but for this thread and sub forum, what do people think about simply removing the attunement requirement from Ioun Stones in 5e? Are the so powerful that that would break the game? I personally think they are at a rarity level such that a DM handing them out could control their distribution sufficiently that they don't need it, especially with the rules for snatching them away.

-1 stone gives you +1 to your proficiency, no upper limit.

-6 of the stones give you +2 to one stat up to 20, stacking with other items.

-2 stones let you just decide to cancel a spell provided it's under a certain level, no save (but with a list of criteria, tbf, and with a non-renewable number of charges).

-1 stone let anyone store spells up to 3 level, so you can unleash them latter as if the initial caster was casting it.

-1 stone give you +1 AC, stackable with all armors, magical effects, class features and magic items.

-1 stone heals you 15 HPs per hour as long as you have 1 HP

-1 stone makes you not need air and food.

Out of those, only the last two could be argued as not requiring equipment, IMO.

Attunement is a very different limit compared to body slots. You can wear 10 magic rings and arguably several headbands/crowns/hats at once, but you can only wear one pair of shoes per pair of feet you have, despite the fact most rings and most head-worn magic items are stronger than the majority of magic shoes and boots. As such, attunement is supposed to limit the power of a powerful item.

So if the argument is "there should be more Ioun Stones that are weaker and require no attunement", then I agree. If the argument is "the currently existing Ioun Stones shouldn't have attunement", then I disagree.

[Schwann145]

The easy fix is to just not let the Ioun Stone effects stack with each other. No stacking +2 Stat stones until you get to 20, etc.

Fundamentally though, I agree with OP.

[Unoriginal]

The easy fix is to just not let the Ioun Stone effects stack with each other. No stacking +2 Stat stones until you get to 20, etc.

Fundamentally though, I agree with OP.

You can't stack the same +2. You can get +2 to several stats.

I meant you could stack Gauntlets of Ogre Power or an Headband of Intellect (for example) with the Ioun Stone boosting the relevant stat.

[Segev]

Remember that 5e has crafting and buying rules, but they are a lot more prohibitive, expensive, and still DM-controlled than 3e. At Very Rare, I don't foresee players being able to get stacks of +2 stones that pile on the same stat unless the DM is deliberately offering them. And, with attunement as a requirement, I am unsure a +2 stat is worth it. The items that rocket you to 19 are Uncommon. While Charisma, Dexterity, and Wisdom lack such items, note that the +2 Strength Ioun Stone is no rarer nor harder to get than the +2 Dexterity one. A Stone of Good Luck is going to be generally better, too. And that doesn't fly around your head, easy to snag away.

I don't see stacking +2 dex stones as being that big of a risk. You can already stack +2 dex tomes, after all, and those also increase your maximum. They are even that same rarity!

[Unoriginal]

Remember that 5e has crafting and buying rules, but they are a lot more prohibitive, expensive, and still DM-controlled than 3e. At Very Rare, I don't foresee players being able to get stacks of +2 stones that pile on the same stat unless the DM is deliberately offering them. And, with attunement as a requirement, I am unsure a +2 stat is worth it. The items that rocket you to 19 are Uncommon. While Charisma, Dexterity, and Wisdom lack such items, note that the +2 Strength Ioun Stone is no rarer nor harder to get than the +2 Dexterity one. A Stone of Good Luck is going to be generally better, too. And that doesn't fly around your head, easy to snag away.

I don't see stacking +2 dex stones as being that big of a risk. You can already stack +2 dex tomes, after all, and those also increase your maximum. They are even that same rarity!

You can't stack the same +2. But you can stack the one that rocket you to 19 and the +2 for an even 20.

The thing with the +2 Ioun Stones isn't that they're brokenly good or anything, it's just that without attunement they are universally desirable.

Like, can you imagine any PC that wouldn't go for a +2 to a stat that took neither attunement nor hands to hold nor space on the body? Even if it's a stat you usually don't care about, it's a no-brainer to get such a boost if available, and doubly so if it's a stat you care about.

[stoutstien]

Ioun stones have always taken attunement it's just back in the day that didn't have any real mechanical backing so it's just followed them from edition to edition.

[Segev]

You can't stack the same +2. But you can stack the one that rocket you to 19 and the +2 for an even 20.

The thing with the +2 Ioun Stones isn't that they're brokenly good or anything, it's just that without attunement they are universally desirable.

Like, can you imagine any PC that wouldn't go for a +2 to a stat that took neither attunement nor hands to hold nor space on the body? Even if it's a stat you usually don't care about, it's a no-brainer to get such a boost if available, and doubly so if it's a stat you care about.same can be said about the tomes of +2 stat, though. Which can't be taken away, have the same rarity, and can take you all the way to 30.

Also, whether they stack with the stat->19 item is questionable. They could increase your base stat by two, then have the item rocket you to 19. Or they could increase you to 20, then have the item shut off because it does nothing if your stat is already 20 or higher, and then turn back on when your stat drops to base+2, putting you back at 19. This could cycle or settle at 19. Or a DM could let you spend two attunement slots on a 20 in your stat, which is overkill unless you really need that +5 mod and couldn't get there more cheaply.

Ioun stones have always taken attunement it's just back in the day that didn't have any real mechanical backing so it's just followed them from edition to edition.
They do? I thought you just released them near your head.

[Just to Browse]

I don't think the 3e stones had attunement: https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#iounStones

[stoutstien]

I don't think the 3e stones had attunement: https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#iounStones

It did in that you had to hold and then toss them in the air to "attune" them but that edition didn't use attunement as a mechanical term. Same for 2e and basic although they did use the word article when they first introduced them.

[Unoriginal]

same can be said about the tomes of +2 stat, though. Which can't be taken away, have the same rarity, and can take you all the way to 30.

But the books are an once-a-century deal each. The Ioun Stone can be swapped around in the team freely.

Ad since the book is a permanent boost it'll likely to go to the one PC who'll benefit the most from it. The Ioun Stone, meanwhile, is nice to have for anyone who still has an attunement slot available.



Also, whether they stack with the stat->19 item is questionable. They could increase your base stat by two, then have the item rocket you to 19. Or they could increase you to 20, then have the item shut off because it does nothing if your stat is already 20 or higher, and then turn back on when your stat drops to base+2, putting you back at 19. This could cycle or settle at 19. Or a DM could let you spend two attunement slots on a 20 in your stat, which is overkill unless you really need that +5 mod and couldn't get there more cheaply.

Overkill or not, it's a possibility. Possibilities pile up, providing power.

For one example: an Artificier could have Gauntlets of Ogre Power thanks to their class feature, and still benefit from the Ioun Stone. Or they could spread tjose items among the team to not have all their eggs in the same basket.

Flexibility is a big factor.

[Just to Browse]

It did in that you had to hold and then toss them in the air to "attune" them but that edition didn't use attunement as a mechanical term. Same for 2e and basic although they did use the word article when they first introduced them.

The parallel to attunement I think of in 3e is limit on the number of magic items a user can receive benefits from (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#magicItemsOnTheBody). Ioun stones exist outside this limit

[Schwann145]

You can't stack the same +2. You can get +2 to several stats.

I meant you could stack Gauntlets of Ogre Power or an Headband of Intellect (for example) with the Ioun Stone boosting the relevant stat.

I'm sure that doesn't work. Items like Gauntlets of Ogre Power don't increase your stats, they set your stats:

Your Strength score is 19 while you wear these gauntlets. They have no effect on you if your Strength is 19 or higher without them.

If your Strength is 10, and you use a +2 Stone, your Strength becomes 12.
If your Strength is 10, and you use GoOP, your Strength becomes 19.
If your Strength is 10, and you use GoOP and a +2 Stone, your Strength becomes 19.

If your Strength is 18, and you use a +2 Stone, your Strength becomes 20.
If your Strength is 18, and you use GoOP, your Strength becomes 19.
If your Strength is 18, and you use GoOP and a +2 Stone, your Strength becomes 20.

[stoutstien]

The parallel to attunement I think of in 3e is limit on the number of magic items a user can receive benefits from (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#magicItemsOnTheBody). Ioun stones exist outside this limit

3.x used slot based limitations. It has no parallel to attunement besides acting as a limiting factor for magic items one can have active.

Prior to 5e attunement was a descriptive action one took to equip items you can't actually equip. Attunement was how you described why the stone remained in orbit around your head.

Attunement in 5e is a mechanical term that governs the *quality* of items you can have active as the slot based limitations are just an understood logical limit. So it's very likely they take attunement because they did from the source materials not for any balance concerns.

[Segev]

But the books are an once-a-century deal each. The Ioun Stone can be swapped around in the team freely.

Ad since the book is a permanent boost it'll likely to go to the one PC who'll benefit the most from it. The Ioun Stone, meanwhile, is nice to have for anyone who still has an attunement slot available.



Overkill or not, it's a possibility. Possibilities pile up, providing power.

For one example: an Artificier could have Gauntlets of Ogre Power thanks to their class feature, and still benefit from the Ioun Stone. Or they could spread tjose items among the team to not have all their eggs in the same basket.

Flexibility is a big factor.

Passing a +2 stat around the party just... doesn't happen. I have not seen it even in 3e (where it was a matter of just donning the item, rather than an hour of attunement), except as a thing when you replace it with a different and better item.

Even if it did, why is this powerful?

The +2 tomes are a permanent boost of +2. The Ioun stone is a semi-permanent boost. I do not see the point you are trying to make, here, or I do not think it is a good or strong one. In practical use, if you were offered a +2 stat rock thst ts easily snatched away, requires attunement, and can't take your stat above 20, or a book that will increase your maximum stat above twenty, can't ever have its benefit taken away, and doesn't require attunement, which would you pick?

The Ioun Stone was transcribed to 5e with too little thought.


3.x used slot based limitations. It has no parallel to attunement besides acting as a limiting factor for magic items one can have active.

Prior to 5e attunement was a descriptive action one took to equip items you can't actually equip. Attunement was how you described why the stone remained in orbit around your head.

Attunement in 5e is a mechanical term that governs the *quality* of items you can have active as the slot based limitations are just an understood logical limit. So it's very likely they take attunement because they did from the source materials not for any balance concerns.This is more or less my point in this thread, so thank you for stating it so clearly. The Ioun Stone's benefit in prior editions was that it could be used regardless of what other equipment you already had. It didn't compete with anything else (including other stones) for a 'slot.'

By making them require attunement, this has been reversed entirely: now they compete for attunement slots, and become limited-access items rather than the things you could stack on top of anything else.

It is, in my view, missing the entire point of the items.

[Cikomyr2]

I say the solution is mechanically straight forward, although completely unbalanced:

- every different ioun stone you own is part of the same Atunement slot. Basically, you attune to the whole of the rotating ioun stones.

If you want to attune to two stones of the same kind, it's two Atunement slots.

Add limitation that ioun stones are obvious on sight and you can actually try to grab them in flight.

[Just to Browse]

3.x used slot based limitations. It has no parallel to attunement besides acting as a limiting factor for magic items one can have active.

Prior to 5e attunement was a descriptive action one took to equip items you can't actually equip. Attunement was how you described why the stone remained in orbit around your head.

Attunement in 5e is a mechanical term that governs the *quality* of items you can have active as the slot based limitations are just an understood logical limit. So it's very likely they take attunement because they did from the source materials not for any balance concerns.

I guess that depends on perspective. I view Ioun Stones as the "cheating" magic item. You cheat whatever restrictive system(s) normally govern(s) magic item use. In AD&D 2e they were useful passive effects that had no class restriction. In 3e they were items that avoided slots. Had I not seen 5e Ioun Stones before, I would expect them not to have an attunement requirement, because that's the primary restriction in 5e that governs how magic items are used. Based on the text of the OP, I think Segev shares that perspective for the items.

[stoutstien]

I guess that depends on perspective. I view Ioun Stones as the "cheating" magic item. You cheat whatever restrictive system(s) normally govern(s) magic item use. In AD&D 2e they were useful passive effects that had no class restriction. In 3e they were items that avoided slots. Had I not seen 5e Ioun Stones before, I would expect them not to have an attunement requirement, because that's the primary restriction in 5e that governs how magic items are used. Based on the text of the OP, I think Segev shares that perspective for the items.

Oh I see you're looking at this from a character building perspective I'm looking at it from an in-game perspective. Attuning them with something that characters did not players where are the built-in limitations of magical items or something the player considered.

[Segev]

Oh I see you're looking at this from a character building perspective I'm looking at it from an in-game perspective. Attuning them with something that characters did not players where are the built-in limitations of magical items or something the player considered.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, here, sorry.

What I'm saying, personally, is that Ioun Stones should not require attunement, because they should not require slots of any sort. Attunement, body, class restrictions... none of those should matter with Ioun Stones. The limitation on them should be their rarity, and thus how hard they are to get. In 5e, this is pretty easily in the DM's hands. Given that they share rarity with the tomes of +2 stat, I would argue that there is no way to suggest that allowing stacking +2 stat Ioun Stones is a problem without also applying the same logic to the stat tomes.

[stoutstien]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, here, sorry.

What I'm saying, personally, is that Ioun Stones should not require attunement, because they should not require slots of any sort. Attunement, body, class restrictions... none of those should matter with Ioun Stones. The limitation on them should be their rarity, and thus how hard they are to get. In 5e, this is pretty easily in the DM's hands. Given that they share rarity with the tomes of +2 stat, I would argue that there is no way to suggest that allowing stacking +2 stat Ioun Stones is a problem without also applying the same logic to the stat tomes.

I agree though the stone aren't something that should be just available on the free market or something like that.

[Hurrashane]

I might be in the minority but I never liked Ion stones. I think they look silly. I'd rather be like Blackwing and have it crafted into a ring or similar.

I'm fine with them requiring attunement, it makes sense to me, it tells the stone who's head to orbit. Otherwise how/why do they not just start floating around someone else's head of they get too close, or multiple heads if you're close enough?

[Segev]

I might be in the minority but I never liked Ion stones. I think they look silly. I'd rather be like Blackwing and have it crafted into a ring or similar.

I'm fine with them requiring attunement, it makes sense to me, it tells the stone who's head to orbit. Otherwise how/why do they not just start floating around someone else's head of they get too close, or multiple heads if you're close enough?

That wasn't a problem in editions that had no attunement. They are released by the user around their head. They orbit 1d3+1 feet from his head.

I'm going to repeat myself, because this argument for attunement doesn't address my argument against it: attunement is the 5e replacement for 3e's body slots. Ioun Stones do not take a body slot, nor should they. They should not require attunement. They are meant to be a slotless buff item.

[Hurrashane]

That wasn't a problem in editions that had no attunement. They are released by the user around their head. They orbit 1d3+1 feet from his head.

I'm going to repeat myself, because this argument for attunement doesn't address my argument against it: attunement is the 5e replacement for 3e's body slots. Ioun Stones do not take a body slot, nor should they. They should not require attunement. They are meant to be a slotless buff item.

I wasn't arguing for attunement. I just said It seems to make sense to me.

Also 2-4 -feet- from the user!? They'd get knocked off on doorways, they're circling a full halflings length away! You'd have to walk up beside the door, let your stone float through and then step through. Heaven forbid you need to squeeze through a narrow passage. Forget trying to get your mount through anywhere Greg the wizard needs 8ft long clearance for his colorful rocks! They're even sillier than I thought.

[Unoriginal]

Passing a +2 stat around the party just... doesn't happen. I have not seen it even in 3e (where it was a matter of just donning the item, rather than an hour of attunement), except as a thing when you replace it with a different and better item.

Even if it did, why is this powerful?

The +2 tomes are a permanent boost of +2. The Ioun stone is a semi-permanent boost. I do not see the point you are trying to make, here, or I do not think it is a good or strong one. In practical use, if you were offered a +2 stat rock thst ts easily snatched away, requires attunement, and can't take your stat above 20, or a book that will increase your maximum stat above twenty, can't ever have its benefit taken away, and doesn't require attunement, which would you pick?

A +2 tome, as I said before, is an once-and-done-deal. The fact it's permanent and can't be taken away is good, but it's also rigid.

You can either read the book, or not read the book. That's it

The +2 bonus from a Ioun Stone is, ironically, not set in stone. Imagine a Fighter getting the STR stone when they have 18 STR. It's good, right? Well, if they level up to the next ASI, they can get 20 STR and let a teammate have the +2 in STR from the Ioun Stone.

Or, if they find an amazing armor that requires attunement and they already have 3 attunement item, they can give the stone to someone else.

Or maybe the group is interacting with a NPC and the Fighter offers the Ioun Stone as a loan or as part of a trade.

Or maybe the group is going to fight a foe who previously put the Sorcerer in great difficulty because said foe has a STR-save-based ability and the Sorcerer has 8 in STR, so the Fighter decides that the +2 in STR helping the Sorcerer resist the ability is more important than their own STR being a +5 instead of a +4, for this boss fight. And after the fight the Fighter can get their stone back.

It's powerful because it *can* happen. It gives you options. It gives you flexibility.

The tomes are more powerful overall, that is undeniable, but once they're used that's it, with only some beings willing to wait until next century to get the next stat upgrade.


attunement is the 5e replacement for 3e's body slots. Ioun Stones do not take a body slot, nor should they. They should not require attunement. They are meant to be a slotless buff item.

Your premise is incorrect. Attunement is a whole different limit than body slots, not just a replacement.

An humanoid in 5e still cannot wear both Winged Boots and Boots of Elvenkind at the same time. That is a limitation based on the anatomy.

Attunement is given based on the total effects of the item. That Ioun Stones take no space on the body is going to make them *more* likely to require attunement, because if you put the same magic effect on a pair of gauntlets there would be "this character cannot benefit from another pair of gauntlets at the same time" as a downside, making the overall item less powerful than an orbiting stone (even considering the possiblity the stone can be taken (but not easily) by someone else during combat).

[Dork_Forge]

A +2 tome, as I said before, is an once-and-done-deal. The fact it's permanent and can't be taken away is good, but it's also rigid.

You can either read the book, or not read the book. That's it

The +2 bonus from a Ioun Stone is, ironically, not set in stone. Imagine a Fighter getting the STR stone when they have 18 STR. It's good, right? Well, if they level up to the next ASI, they can get 20 STR and let a teammate have the +2 in STR from the Ioun Stone.

Or, if they find an amazing armor that requires attunement and they already have 3 attunement item, they can give the stone to someone else.

Or maybe the group is interacting with a NPC and the Fighter offers the Ioun Stone as a loan or as part of a trade.

Or maybe the group is going to fight a foe who previously put the Sorcerer in great difficulty because said foe has a STR-save-based ability and the Sorcerer has 8 in STR, so the Fighter decides that the +2 in STR helping the Sorcerer resist the ability is more important than their own STR being a +5 instead of a +4, for this boss fight. And after the fight the Fighter can get their stone back.

It's powerful because it *can* happen. It gives you options. It gives you flexibility.

The tomes are more powerful overall, that is undeniable, but once they're used that's it, with only some beings willing to wait until next century to get the next stat upgrade.

I'd like to include minions in this, a Steel Defender or drake, for example, would both benefit from a Str boost and have their own concentration. Or a sidekick could be boosted.

Tomes are also not really comparable, you're far less likely to get a permanent buff like a tome from a DM, and when you do it's way more of a hassle to actually set up initially.

[Segev]

It could certainly be argued that making them take up an attunement slot goes against the nature of ioun stones.

It could also be argued that making any magic item not do so goes against the nature of 5ed.There are lots of items in 5e that don't require attunement, so the latter argument is easily refuted, I would say.


A +2 tome, as I said before, is an once-and-done-deal. The fact it's permanent and can't be taken away is good, but it's also rigid.

You can either read the book, or not read the book. That's it Sure. But if the +2 stone doesn't require attunement, you are not getting anything more from the stone than from the book. In fact, you're still getting less; you can't raise your stat above 20 with the stone. (Not even if your cap is actually 24; a level 20 barbarian with 20 Strength and 24 Strength cap can't benefit from the +2 stone, ironically.)


The +2 bonus from a Ioun Stone is, ironically, not set in stone. Imagine a Fighter getting the STR stone when they have 18 STR. It's good, right? Well, if they level up to the next ASI, they can get 20 STR and let a teammate have the +2 in STR from the Ioun Stone. Except if that fighter had used a +2 Str tome instead of the +2 Str stone, he would not be down an attunement slot, and his ASI could take him to Str 22.


Or, if they find an amazing armor that requires attunement and they already have 3 attunement item, they can give the stone to someone else. But if they used the Tome instead of the stone (or the stone didn't require attunement, which I am arguing in favor of), they could attune the armor and keep their Str at 20.


Or maybe the group is interacting with a NPC and the Fighter offers the Ioun Stone as a loan or as part of a trade.Sure, which he could do if it didn't require attunement, or could offer a different item if he'd read the tome. Heck, depending what race the NPC is, the tome might be still valuable for trade, if 100 years from now will still be well within the NPC's lifespan. Not as much as if he could read it right now, but not without considerable value. The stone may well not be worth as much, even so, if the NPC already has 3 attuned items!


Or maybe the group is going to fight a foe who previously put the Sorcerer in great difficulty because said foe has a STR-save-based ability and the Sorcerer has 8 in STR, so the Fighter decides that the +2 in STR helping the Sorcerer resist the ability is more important than their own STR being a +5 instead of a +4, for this boss fight. And after the fight the Fighter can get their stone back. Possible, but a better investment would be Oil of Slipperiness. The +1 is unlikely to make that big of a difference, and wouldn't it be embarrassing for it to make the difference...by having the FIGHTER lose by 1? I don't find this scenario terribly persuasive, and even if it were, it's awfully niche, and doesn't make the stone requiring attunement feel justified. This flexibility remains if the stone doesn't require attunement, and could, in fact, allow the hand-off to happen mid-combat if needs be.


It's powerful because it *can* happen. It gives you options. It gives you flexibility. Even if I accept the argument that this limited flexibility is powerful, it isn't sufficient to justify an attunement cost when the item is, in general, weaker than the same-rarity tome.


The tomes are more powerful overall, that is undeniable, but once they're used that's it, with only some beings willing to wait until next century to get the next stat upgrade.Honestly, this whole line of argument sounds like, "An air conditioned car is better overall, that is undeniable, but you actually have to let the AC burn energy and thus reduce gas mileage compared to the hotbox 2000, which gets the same gas mileage as the AC-off Coolcar 9X, but because you can't turn on the AC, gets better gas mileage overall!" It sounds a lot like trying to pitch the defects of the item as features, and using that to justify making it more expensive than the superior item.

[Unoriginal]

I'd like to include minions in this, a Steel Defender or drake, for example, would both benefit from a Str boost and have their own concentration. Or a sidekick could be boosted.

Very true. They could benefit from any stat-boosting item, and it would work even for a long-lasting-enough summon.

[Segev]

Tomes are also not really comparable, you're far less likely to get a permanent buff like a tome from a DM, and when you do it's way more of a hassle to actually set up initially.

I disagree. Same rarity item, similar effect. The only reason the DM might be more generous with the Ioun Stone is BECAUSE it doesn't go over 20 and is attunement... which is a tacit admission that this actually makes it a less valuable item despite the rarity mark being the same.

And, if that's all there is to argue in favor of attunement requirement on Ioun Stones, then the counterargument is simple: The DM just will award them as rarely as the tome. (Honestly, I think he'd still award them more often than the tome, as they'd go to the people who have sub-20 in the stat, and not break bounded accuracy as easily.)


Even if they stack, 3 Ioun Stones of +2 Charisma will only take somebody from 14 to 20; 3 tomes of +2 Charisma will take them all the way to 26, at least potentially. In short, they can't break bounded accuracy because they can't buff you over 20.


I do not see a justification here for the attunement requirement.

[Elanfanforlife]

Also 2-4 -feet- from the user!? They'd get knocked off on doorways, they're circling a full halflings length away! You'd have to walk up beside the door, let your stone float through and then step through. Heaven forbid you need to squeeze through a narrow passage. Forget trying to get your mount through anywhere Greg the wizard needs 8ft long clearance for his colorful rocks! They're even sillier than I thought.

I think that if there was a thin space, then they would change their orbit to be more elliptical.

[Unoriginal]

Sure. But if the +2 stone doesn't require attunement, you are not getting anything more from the stone than from the book. In fact, you're still getting less; you can't raise your stat above 20 with the stone. (Not even if your cap is actually 24; a level 20 barbarian with 20 Strength and 24 Strength cap can't benefit from the +2 stone, ironically.)

The direct benefits from the stone are lesser. But the possibilities it offers are greater.



Possible, but a better investment would be Oil of Slipperiness. The +1 is unlikely to make that big of a difference, and wouldn't it be embarrassing for it to make the difference...by having the FIGHTER lose by 1? I don't find this scenario terribly persuasive, and even if it were, it's awfully niche, and doesn't make the stone requiring attunement feel justified. This flexibility remains if the stone doesn't require attunement, and could, in fact, allow the hand-off to happen mid-combat if needs be.

And where is that Oil coming from? PCs looking at the equipment they currently have and seeing someone else in the party may benefit more



Even if I accept the argument that this limited flexibility is powerful, it isn't sufficient to justify an attunement cost when the item is, in general, weaker than the same-rarity tome.

With attunement, the Stone and the tome are interestingly comparable. Without attunement, the Stone would be the better item, without contest, with the only thing allowing the tome to stay in the race at all being that it can raise the stat past 20.



Even if they stack, 3 Ioun Stones of +2 Charisma

They do not stack with each others. The rules are clear on that.

[Dork_Forge]

I disagree. Same rarity item, similar effect. The only reason the DM might be more generous with the Ioun Stone is BECAUSE it doesn't go over 20 and is attunement... which is a tacit admission that this actually makes it a less valuable item despite the rarity mark being the same.

And, if that's all there is to argue in favor of attunement requirement on Ioun Stones, then the counterargument is simple: The DM just will award them as rarely as the tome. (Honestly, I think he'd still award them more often than the tome, as they'd go to the people who have sub-20 in the stat, and not break bounded accuracy as easily.)


Even if they stack, 3 Ioun Stones of +2 Charisma will only take somebody from 14 to 20; 3 tomes of +2 Charisma will take them all the way to 26, at least potentially. In short, they can't break bounded accuracy because they can't buff you over 20.


I do not see a justification here for the attunement requirement.

I wasn't speaking to attunement in general, I was expanding on the value of a +2 to a stat, which you seem to greatly undervalue. In a game with so few ASIs, but level-by-level (frontloaded) multiclassing and stat-dependent abilities, being able to have a +2 that can just get passed around would be useful. Or hell, consider it a feat. The stone is worth an entire ASI, so having it means the PC can spend that ASI instead on a feat without harming their stat progression.

Example of the Cha stone applied to one of my games: Game has a straight classes Paladin with a +4 Cha, but he's fully loaded on attunement slots (and they've worked their way up to 5 slots, not the RAW 3). That +2 stone not having attunement makes it a no brainer, and no cost, for him to buff his aura to +5 and improve his casting even further. It's such an extreme benefit that there's no way I would look at the stone and go 'yeah this doesn't need concentration.'

But if you're talking about stone in general then I really don't understand where you're coming from.

- Stone of Mastery breaks bounded accuracy by letting you go beyond your prof limit, nevermind that it is distorting game expectations of whatever level you're at. Oh and then there are all those features that now key off of prof times per day you're buffing too.

- Stone of Absorption is a crazy good defense. No attunement means 'why not,' so even if casters aren't super common, the defense to just nullify them can be there just in case.

- Stone of Reserve is a lesser version of a ring of spell storing. I don't see how even more spells without any cost to the character (at the time) aren't disruptive. Especially since you can put outlier spells like Shield and Healing Word in there and then just hand it off.

- Stone of Regeneration can distort OOC challenges, saw this in a different way with a PC getting a troll heart (1hp/round), it basically just meant that any time there was danger he'd be the crash test dummy because his HP didn't matter OOC.

- Stone of Protection can 100% screw with bounded accuracy. Especially since there's no cost to a PC having that and a stone with Shields cast inside. Or their actual attunement being spent on other AC items, like X of Protection, Staff of Defense, Bracers etc.

- Stone of Awareness invalidates surprise. That's part of a feat or a Barbarian's 7th level feature. Or hey, a weapon of warning which... requires attunement.

- The stat boosting stones could qualify a PC for MCing, depending on how the DM handles stat boosting items and MC prereqs.

You could certainly argue that some stones shouldn't need attunement, but to blanketly say that they all shouldn't is just an utter disregard for both balance and consistency in the game.

But then again, the basic premise of the thread is just flawed. Attunement does not do the job of 'item slots,' attunement seeks to limit the power gained through permanent items at a given time, not limit the total amount of items you can use. And for the thread to even be relevant (having a cloud of them) then you are 100% distorting the power a PC gets from items by removing concentration in a massive way.


Ioun stones are a cool concept, but you are not meant to have a cloud of them as a PC in 5e.

[Hurrashane]

I think that if there was a thin space, then they would change their orbit to be more elliptical.

Wonder what happens if you try and squeeze through like, kobold tunnels. Do you just have to remove them? Can you tie strings and corks to them so they can knock out flies? How much weight can they carry? How far away can you get from one if it got snagged? What do they do if you're in dense foliage, do they just get stuck on branches?

I have so many questions about the silly colored rocks that the 5e books don't really answer. They say that a creature must do certain things to remove the stones, but not how the stones interact with various objects or environmental effects. Like, can an Ioun stone get stuck in a spider web?

[Unoriginal]

Wonder what happens if you try and squeeze through like, kobold tunnels. Do you just have to remove them? Can you tie strings and corks to them so they can knock out flies? How much weight can they carry? How far away can you get from one if it got snagged? What do they do if you're in dense foliage, do they just get stuck on branches?

The stone changes its courses to avoid getting stuck in things (and attempts to do so when something tries to grab it), and the orbit squeezes smaller if needed.

[Segev]

The direct benefits from the stone are lesser. But the possibilities it offers are greater.Not much, really. It's +2 to a stat, either way. The ability to shuffle that around the party is not that big of a deal. Generally speaking, it will belong to one PC. It would be odd to even see a +dex stone passed back and forth between skill masters, because the skill master usually will want dex for combat as well as for skill stuff.


And where is that Oil coming from? PCs looking at the equipment they currently have and seeing someone else in the party may benefit moreThen they probably don't have the hour to do re-attunement, either, which means this only comes up if we remove attunement from Ioun Stones. Then, in this extremely niche case, the Stone is a smidgen better than the Tome. Maybe. But still probably not.


With attunement, the Stone and the tome are interestingly comparable. Without attunement, the Stone would be the better item, without contest, with the only thing allowing the tome to stay in the race at all being that it can raise the stat past 20."Without transporters, a 20th century automobile would be the better vehicle, without contest, with the only thing allowing the 24th-century shuttlecraft to stay in the race at all being the ability to go to warp."

Seriously, no. The "benefits" you attribute to the Ioun Stone of +2 Stat are just so ludicrously overvalued in your estimate that I can't even begin to fathom where you're coming from. The fact that the Tome can go over 20 makes it head and shoulders better than the Ioun Stone even if the Ioun Stone has no attunement requirement at all. And that's without considering that the Stone can be snagged out of the air.

It's not that a +1 to various d20 rolls is not good, but it's not going to be the make-or-break thing you make it out to be in your examples, and shuffling the stone around the party just...isn't that great. It's not a bad thing to have available, but it would come up so very rarely and be so not-clutch when it does that it is a gimmick, at best, like LED undercarriage lighting on a sports car.



I wasn't speaking to attunement in general, I was expanding on the value of a +2 to a stat, which you seem to greatly undervalue.I don't undervalue it. It's nice to have. I'm saying that it doesn't justify attunement requirement on the Ioun Stones that provide it, because the Tome of Stat +2 does that and more for no attunement and is the same rarity. And, as a very general rule of thumb, attunement can shift something up or down one rarity level by removing or adding it.

All of that aside, I stand by my statement that attunement requirement on Ioun Stones is missing the point of the items.

But I still also say that there's nothing broken about the +2 Stat Ioun Stones losing attunement, unless the tomes are all broken.


Example of the Cha stone applied to one of my games: Game has a straight classes Paladin with a +4 Cha, but he's fully loaded on attunement slots (and they've worked their way up to 5 slots, not the RAW 3). That +2 stone not having attunement makes it a no brainer, and no cost, for him to buff his aura to +5 and improve his casting even further. It's such an extreme benefit that there's no way I would look at the stone and go 'yeah this doesn't need concentration.' Then the +2 Cha tome is also a no brainer, and no cost, so why hasn't he used it?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personally, argument from previous editions is down there with "Gygax said so" and "because I said so" as persuasive arguments.

I'd be much more apt to say that any item that changes your stats in any way should be attunement required and should explicitly not stack.. And if that breaks the stones, well, I've never considered them mission critical. And they're one of the more "weird legacy cruft" things with no thematic resonance (to me anyway), so no big loss.

[Segev]

Personally, argument from previous editions is down there with "Gygax said so" and "because I said so" as persuasive arguments.

I'd be much more apt to say that any item that changes your stats in any way should be attunement required and should explicitly not stack.. And if that breaks the stones, well, I've never considered them mission critical. And they're one of the more "weird legacy cruft" things with no thematic resonance (to me anyway), so no big loss.

I mean, by that logic, we shouldn't expect Dearn's Instant Fortress to be a cube that turns into a tower of adamantine, we shouldn't expect that Wave is a trident, and we shouldn't expect that classes will exist.

My argument is that the point of Ioun Stones is to be slotless items that are expensive for their effect because they have no other limitation. Making them take up a slot - attunement, in this case - is missing the point of them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean, by that logic, we shouldn't expect Dearn's Instant Fortress to be a cube that turns into a tower of adamantine, we shouldn't expect that Wave is a trident, and we shouldn't expect that classes will exist.

My argument is that the point of Ioun Stones is to be slotless items that are expensive for their effect because they have no other limitation. Making them take up a slot - attunement, in this case - is missing the point of them.

Yup. We shouldn't expect anything to be anything until it's set down in the rules of this edition. What happened in prior editions is null and void and is not relevant to anything in this edition. Period. Full stop.

You're importing something that was never said. And they're definitionally not more expensive for their effect--they're the same rarity (ie cost) as another item that does the same thing. So your argument fails on its own merit, in addition to smuggling in terms that have no meaning in 5e (slotless).

[Segev]

Yup. We shouldn't expect anything to be anything until it's set down in the rules of this edition. What happened in prior editions is null and void and is not relevant to anything in this edition. Period. Full stop.Nonsense. They are called "Ioun Stones;" we can expect them to have a similar niche. You don't expect the Bag of Holding to turn out to be a monster mimic that grabs people and holds them in grapples.


You're importing something that was never said. And they're definitionally not more expensive for their effect--they're the same rarity (ie cost) as another item that does the same thing. So your argument fails on its own merit, in addition to smuggling in terms that have no meaning in 5e (slotless).They are more expensive for their effect than "equivalent" items. They require attunement, are easier than any other item to take away, and are not able to break 20 stat limit (or even buff you to your limit if your limit is over 20). The Tomes are the same rarity, do not require attunement, raise your maximum, and can put you over 20. They're also nigh-impossible to take away once used, at least in any real sense. You'd basically need a Plot Event (i.e. DM fiat) to do it.

So, if you want to quibble over definitions to make the statement, "They're not more expensive than an equivalent item," true, then you actually are making them weaker than equivalently expensive items.

The point of a bag of holding is to store more stuff than the space/weight would normally allow. The point of a helm of brilliance is to blast a bunch of flashy energy spells around and to make your sword flaming. The point of an immovable rod is to be almost impossible to move. The point of Ioun Stones are to be the item that is pricey for what it does, easy to snatch away, but always something you can choose to add to your equipped item list due to it taking no "space." In 5e, attunement is the "slot" equivalent, and it is misapplied to Ioun Stones in the same way that having an Immovable Rod be some buff fighter mercenary NPC you can hire to guard your camp would be missing the point.

[Forum Explorer]

Nonsense. They are called "Ioun Stones;" we can expect them to have a similar niche. You don't expect the Bag of Holding to turn out to be a monster mimic that grabs people and holds them in grapples.

They are more expensive for their effect than "equivalent" items. They require attunement, are easier than any other item to take away, and are not able to break 20 stat limit (or even buff you to your limit if your limit is over 20). The Tomes are the same rarity, do not require attunement, raise your maximum, and can put you over 20. They're also nigh-impossible to take away once used, at least in any real sense. You'd basically need a Plot Event (i.e. DM fiat) to do it.

So, if you want to quibble over definitions to make the statement, "They're not more expensive than an equivalent item," true, then you actually are making them weaker than equivalently expensive items.

The point of a bag of holding is to store more stuff than the space/weight would normally allow. The point of a helm of brilliance is to blast a bunch of flashy energy spells around and to make your sword flaming. The point of an immovable rod is to be almost impossible to move. The point of Ioun Stones are to be the item that is pricey for what it does, easy to snatch away, but always something you can choose to add to your equipped item list due to it taking no "space." In 5e, attunement is the "slot" equivalent, and it is misapplied to Ioun Stones in the same way that having an Immovable Rod be some buff fighter mercenary NPC you can hire to guard your camp would be missing the point.


Bag of Holding is a descriptive name though. Ioun Stones are not. If you didn't play with them before, you would have no idea what an Ioun stone is just from the name. Wave to use an earlier example, doesn't need to be a trident. Lets say it was a bow instead. That gave you water walking, and the ability to basically shoot out mini tidal waves 3/day. That is completely different from what the old Wave was, and yet still fits with the name Wave. And even then, Ioun Stones basically do the same thing as those earlier editions. Magical bauble that floats around your head, buffing you in some way.


Also the 'point' of Ioun Stones isn't necessarily to be what you say it is. Seriously, on what basis are you saying that? Because in a completely different edition that's what they are? So what? Just because an earlier edition did that doesn't mean the latter editions are obligated to do so. Particularly since attunement literally wasn't a thing back then.

Are they worse than an item of equivalent rarity? Maybe so, but again, so what? That's information the DM might use to decide if they should be given or not. And honestly from what I'm hearing it seems like the various +2 books should be rarer than Ioun Stones.

So should they require attunement? I don't see why not. There are lots of much weaker magical items that also require attunement, and I don't see you arguing that the Hat of Disguise should just work immediately as well.

In short if I was your DM, I wouldn't be convinced. I'd be more inclined to think you were just being greedy than making an argument in good faith that this is how Ioun Stones should be. Mind you as a DM I tend to be very stingy with magic items in 5e. If the entire party has maxed out their attunement slots, we had better be in epic levels because otherwise I've be far too generous with my rewards.

[Segev]

Bag of Holding is a descriptive name though. Ioun Stones are not. If you didn't play with them before, you would have no idea what an Ioun stone is just from the name. Wave to use an earlier example, doesn't need to be a trident. Lets say it was a bow instead. That gave you water walking, and the ability to basically shoot out mini tidal waves 3/day. That is completely different from what the old Wave was, and yet still fits with the name Wave. And even then, Ioun Stones basically do the same thing as those earlier editions. Magical bauble that floats around your head, buffing you in some way.


Also the 'point' of Ioun Stones isn't necessarily to be what you say it is. Seriously, on what basis are you saying that? Because in a completely different edition that's what they are? So what? Just because an earlier edition did that doesn't mean the latter editions are obligated to do so. Particularly since attunement literally wasn't a thing back then.

Are they worse than an item of equivalent rarity? Maybe so, but again, so what? That's information the DM might use to decide if they should be given or not. And honestly from what I'm hearing it seems like the various +2 books should be rarer than Ioun Stones.

So should they require attunement? I don't see why not. There are lots of much weaker magical items that also require attunement, and I don't see you arguing that the Hat of Disguise should just work immediately as well.

In short if I was your DM, I wouldn't be convinced. I'd be more inclined to think you were just being greedy than making an argument in good faith that this is how Ioun Stones should be. Mind you as a DM I tend to be very stingy with magic items in 5e. If the entire party has maxed out their attunement slots, we had better be in epic levels because otherwise I've be far too generous with my rewards.
If they'd remade Ioun Stones so that they had none of the iconic properties - they didn't fly around your head, they couldn't be nabbed out of the air, etc. - then maybe you'd have a case. But it is painfully obvious that they were translating the item from earlier editions, and they're meant to be recognizably the same item.

Their point and purpose has always been to not need to justify a "slot." You've at least acknowledged that I've said this, but your rebuttal seems to be, "Nuh-uh," with no backing other than "well, er, it's a new edition." You don't even provide an alternate hypothesis for what the Ioun Stones are meant to be or do.

Ultimately, though, the images of them, when shown in use, always portrayed a (frankly, given how rare and expensive they are in any edition, unrealistic) number of them flying about the head. Admittedly, the DMG in 5e shows them just kind-of sitting on the page, possibly implying they're on a table or shelf or something and not in use, but to lean on that would be to suggest that maybe they shouldn't need to fly around the head at all, and can just be carried in a belt pouch. Like a Stone of Good Luck, perhaps.

I'm sorry, but being limited to a maximum of 3 Ioun Stones - and that only by giving up every other possible attuned item - is antithetical to the way they've always worked. As I've put it multiple times, it's missing the point of them as magic items.

Ioun Stones should not require attunement. I would say this even if I agreed they were so powerful they needed it as a balancing factor, and would advocate weakening them commensurately to remove it. However, given comparable items' superior qualities already, at least six of which lack a need for attunement, I do not believe that they even justify attunement based on balance. They are actively weak Very Rare items compared to comparable Very Rare items, and requiring attunement only makes them weaker. Ioun Stones should not require attunement, either thematically, game-balance wise, or design purpose for their form factor and behavior-wise.

[Forum Explorer]

If they'd remade Ioun Stones so that they had none of the iconic properties - they didn't fly around your head, they couldn't be nabbed out of the air, etc. - then maybe you'd have a case. But it is painfully obvious that they were translating the item from earlier editions, and they're meant to be recognizably the same item.

Their point and purpose has always been to not need to justify a "slot." You've at least acknowledged that I've said this, but your rebuttal seems to be, "Nuh-uh," with no backing other than "well, er, it's a new edition." You don't even provide an alternate hypothesis for what the Ioun Stones are meant to be or do.

Ultimately, though, the images of them, when shown in use, always portrayed a (frankly, given how rare and expensive they are in any edition, unrealistic) number of them flying about the head. Admittedly, the DMG in 5e shows them just kind-of sitting on the page, possibly implying they're on a table or shelf or something and not in use, but to lean on that would be to suggest that maybe they shouldn't need to fly around the head at all, and can just be carried in a belt pouch. Like a Stone of Good Luck, perhaps.

I'm sorry, but being limited to a maximum of 3 Ioun Stones - and that only by giving up every other possible attuned item - is antithetical to the way they've always worked. As I've put it multiple times, it's missing the point of them as magic items.

Ioun Stones should not require attunement. I would say this even if I agreed they were so powerful they needed it as a balancing factor, and would advocate weakening them commensurately to remove it. However, given comparable items' superior qualities already, at least six of which lack a need for attunement, I do not believe that they even justify attunement based on balance. They are actively weak Very Rare items compared to comparable Very Rare items, and requiring attunement only makes them weaker. Ioun Stones should not require attunement, either thematically, game-balance wise, or design purpose for their form factor and behavior-wise.

My point is 'Nuh-uh, it's a new edition' is because your assertion for them not needing a slot is basically 'well that's how they were in other editions.' Literally. That's it. Which isn't even true because attunement wasn't a thing in older editions. Well, 3.5 at least. Their thing was that you could use them and not take up an item slot. Which is still true for what that's worth.

The argument that art wise they show multiple flying around. Sure, I can buy that as a reason, though you also acknowledge that the art doesn't exist in 5e, and that it was always very unrealistic for someone to actually possess multiple Ioun Stones. So that kinda doesn't fly. But if that ever was the deal breaker, than I could accept the idea that Ioun Stones can be attuned as a set, and no matter how many Ioun Stones you use, they only take up 1 attunement slot.

Balance wise, eh. The magic item section is admittedly a mess. Like Frost Brand is rarer than Flame Tongue and it is arguably worse. Dragon Scale Armor requires attunement, but Dwarven Armor doesn't. The rarities are all over the map. The attunements are less so, generally speaking if something is 'equipped' it typically requires attunement, but not always. Anyways, most of their abilities are similar to abilities found on rings, which do all require attunement. Or other items with similar effects which require attunement. So from a balance argument, requiring attunement seems perfectly in line with other items. Or that the magic item section is so messed up that pretty much all magic items should be reworked to be more consistent on what requires attunement and what doesn't.

Basically all I'm really getting from you is that you want Ioun Stones to not need attunement because you really want them not to. You don't even expect to ever actually have multiple Ioun Stones, you just like the idea of someone having a little solar system of tiny flying rocks around with their head as the sun. And while there is nothing wrong from with wanting that, it isn't persuasive as an arguement.

[Schwann145]

The argument that art wise they show multiple flying around. Sure, I can buy that as a reason, though you also acknowledge that the art doesn't exist in 5e, and that it was always very unrealistic for someone to actually possess multiple Ioun Stones. So that kinda doesn't fly. But if that ever was the deal breaker, than I could accept the idea that Ioun Stones can be attuned as a set, and no matter how many Ioun Stones you use, they only take up 1 attunement slot.

To build on the art argument, there are NPC stat blocks that do list multiple Ioun Stone use. Larloch (https://www.realmshelps.net/npc/larloch.shtml) from 3.0 Faerun comes to mind: in addition to his artwork which shows many floating stones, he is described as having "A stunning rainbow of glowing stones orbit[ing] above his head..."
The actual number listed in his stats is 25 stones.

[Hurrashane]

You don't expect the Bag of Holding to turn out to be a monster mimic that grabs people and holds them in grapples.


Unless it's secretly a Bag of Devouring.

But also a mimic pretending to be a bag of holding is a pretty nasty trick. Might have to use this/suggest it to my usual DM.

[Nagog]

Yeah the attunement requirement means that the old aesthetic of a 3 or more stones floating around your head isn't as viable as it used to be. I wouldn't say no to dropping attunement on them. One potentially clunky alternative might be that once you've attuned to one stone, the next [1/2/3/X] stones you 'attune' to don't take up a slot, letting you put a few items into a single attunement slot, but only if they're all ioun stones.

...I'd also kinda like a way to 'recharge' the absorption stones as well so they don't permanently burn themselves out forever.

Agreed: There is some precedent for specific magic items working in tandem with others and only requiring a single attunement slot (I want to say the Belt of Dwarvenkind was one of them but it's been a hot minute), and Ioun Stones are a perfect candidate for that.


You can't stack the same +2. But you can stack the one that rocket you to 19 and the +2 for an even 20.

The thing with the +2 Ioun Stones isn't that they're brokenly good or anything, it's just that without attunement they are universally desirable.

Like, can you imagine any PC that wouldn't go for a +2 to a stat that took neither attunement nor hands to hold nor space on the body? Even if it's a stat you usually don't care about, it's a no-brainer to get such a boost if available, and doubly so if it's a stat you care about.

Headband of Intellect doesn't stack with anything, period. The wording is that your Int score "Is" 19 while you wear it, unless it's already higher. It doesn't raise your score to 19, it places it there. If your score is higher, it does nothing. So at best you're stuck in a feedback loop of "Int is 15+2 for 17, therefore it is 19, therefore it is 19+2 for a max of 20, therefore Headband off, therefore Int is 15+17 got 17..."

[DarknessEternal]

Anything providing bonuses to hit, damage, saves, save DCs, or AC needs to require attunement.

The entire framework of game balance depends on that. Before you say "what about +x weapons?". Yes. those are a problem.

[Cikomyr2]

Anything providing bonuses to hit, damage, saves, save DCs, or AC needs to require attunement.

The entire framework of game balance depends on that. Before you say "what about +x weapons?". Yes. those are a problem.

which is why I say having non-similar Ioun Stones all taking, as a whole, one attunement slot makes sense. You can maybe get a few different bonuses to stack, but it will mostly be a disparate set of buffs.

Wasn't there a lore thing about "6 ioun stones" together? Bam, have 6 ioun/stones fit in one Attunement slot. that way, it becomes even thematic for one of the party member to go "all in" on those since THATS WHAT MAKES THEM SPECIAL

[PhoenixPhyre]

Anything providing bonuses to hit, damage, saves, save DCs, or AC needs to require attunement.

The entire framework of game balance depends on that. Before you say "what about +x weapons?". Yes. those are a problem.

<grumpy>or just be removed, other than damage.</grumpy>

[stoutstien]

<grumpy>or just be removed, other than damage.</grumpy>

I don't mind those types of bonuses I just think it shouldn't be static. A dagger that allows you to be really accurate once a day? perfectly fine. +3 hit all the time? ZzzzZzzz.

An ioun stones that give +2 AC ? Pass. One that always blocks the first ranged spell or small or small projectile attack by impeding it's path? More interesting.

[Willie the Duck]

I love the concept of attunement. But I feel like the design team didn't really know what they wanted to do with it and as such some items require or not attunement in pretty arbitrary ways, or with unwanted consequences on the balance between them.
I think there are a lot of things (attunement, advantage/disadvantage, bonus actions, etc.) which are really nice ideas (/clarifications or improvements of previous ideas), but that got used for seemingly everything, sometimes to the point of frustration.


Also 2-4 -feet- from the user!? They'd get knocked off on doorways, they're circling a full halflings length away! You'd have to walk up beside the door, let your stone float through and then step through. Heaven forbid you need to squeeze through a narrow passage. Forget trying to get your mount through anywhere Greg the wizard needs 8ft long clearance for his colorful rocks! They're even sillier than I thought.
It was a bit. It was also incredibly on-brand for TSR-era A/D&D. There were a lot of things which were 'this will be incredibly useful to you... provided you can work past/around the logistical challenges.' Treasure might come in the form of fine crystal or statuettes, which were worth a massive amount of GP (and thus XP) -- provided you could get it back to town unbroken. Fireball and Lightning Bolt were incredibly great at ending encounters (occasionally to the negative, given each's propensity for friendly-fire effects), but also great at destroying whatever treasure the enemies had present. If you could figure out how to carry around the rolled-up magic carpet (6'x9' for the largest) until you could figure out the command word, it might become the party's new transport. Having the magic user running around the dungeon with Read Magic memorized was one less Sleep or Magic Missile they had prepared, but if they ran into magic scrolls without it ready and just took them for later, there was a 1d6x5% chance they would fade. Sovereign Glue was situationally miraculous in that it could bond two things together so strongly that no physical act (barring destroying the objects themselves) could separate them, and it came in bottles of 1d10 doses... but it was so sticky that it every time you used it the remainder would stick to the sides of the bottle (ruining it) unless you added a dose of oil of slipperiness (another magic item) each time. Non-iron rations would go bad and cloth objects would rot in damp conditions. Also, a lot of this was not assumed to be known or provided with the casting of Identify or the like, so you could end up losing/destroying things accidentally the first time you ran across them, learning only through trial and error. Obviously this all depended on whether your DM enforced such things (also serious variation between versions and inclusion of supplements and Dragon articles), and boy did a lot of people ignore many or all of it, but it was there (and inconvenient Ioun Stones are a good example).


<position>

<position>
Any time one starts discussing 'the point' of something*, it is quickly going to end up being highly subjective -- to the point where 'the point, to me' is an entirely reasonable framing. It is true that nothing from this edition has to adhere to visions, reasons, or incarnations from previous editions. Heck, a huge portion of the things people have had trouble with any given edition always seems to be something that was kept over from a previous edition despite the reason for it existing or the context in which it existed being absent -- example: porting the 2e AD&D spells over to 3e without adjusting for wildly different hit-point scales and likelihood of getting save-or-suck/die spells to land is what made high-level 3e such a rocket-tag experience. At the same time, 5e absolutely started out as banking heavily on the provenance of previous editions, and in general benefited from having thing X being recognizably just a subtle (/necessary) tweak of 'thing X, as it was in some previous edition.' At least to the point where exceptions are often notable and annoying for some of the base -- example: Gnolls, and there are a lot of people rather miffed about them suddenly changing from the 'pragmatic survivalist humanoids that tend to be aligned with evil' to 'demon infused and wow you need a good explanation for your CG gnoll ranger now.' There's no right way to do this, excepting that, for the devs, neither dogmatic adherence to previous thematics nor excessive deviation without obvious benefit are likely to please the most people. Either way, it seems imminently reasonable to posit 'a point' to how something worked in previous editions, and then to question/perhaps complain that it was changed in the current one without obvious reasoning or benefit.
*the number of times I tried defining the very concept without it being tautological probably is a good indicator of this.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm sorry, but being limited to a maximum of 3 Ioun Stones.
I have seen a total of two of them drop since 2014. How common are they in your games?
I'd like to see a compromise: on slot for Ioun stone, but adding another to the orbit would not consume another slot. Since they are so losable, this fits my sense of balance.
Given how they are portrayed in the Cugel the Clever/Dying Earth stories, their adaptation into D&D and AD&D was IMO a good idea and I am glad that they kept them.

Anything providing bonuses to hit, damage, saves, save DCs, or AC needs to require attunement. No. Please stop hating on martials. :smallfurious:

The entire framework of game balance depends on that. Before you say "what about +x weapons?". Yes. those are a problem. No, they are not. They are intended to make martials better, and the higher bonuses do not show up until mid to late game as I read through the rarity.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No, they are not. They are intended to make martials better, and the higher bonuses do not show up until mid to late game as I read through the rarity.

Personally, I prefer to make martials better by...making martials better. By putting any necessary or useful numbers in the class itself. Not hide away important boosts in things you may not find, but if you do, the best ones are the most boring ones. I hate the idea of "well, I could use that new sword that does fancy things, but it doesn't have the +X I need, so...". And it does distort the game's math and does so in boring ways. And doesn't just make martials better, since armor and weapon proficiency is too darn easy to get.

I'm fine with giving +damage on items. And in the absence of +accuracy, you could even beef that up.

Making martials better and not having +X, stacking items are not at odds. It just means you have to take a different approach. Which might involve giving them more than just bigger numbers!

[KorvinStarmast]

Personally, I prefer to make martials better by...making martials better. By putting any necessary or useful numbers in the class itself. Not hide away important boosts in things you may not find, but if you do, the best ones are the most boring ones. I hate the idea of "well, I could use that new sword that does fancy things, but it doesn't have the +X I need, so...". And it does distort the game's math and does so in boring ways. And doesn't just make martials better, since armor and weapon proficiency is too darn easy to get.

I'm fine with giving +damage on items. And in the absence of +accuracy, you could even beef that up.

Making martials better and not having +X, stacking items are not at odds. It just means you have to take a different approach. Which might involve giving them more than just bigger numbers!

+1 swords have been in the game forever, just as bags of holding have been.
I see no reason to abuse martials over that by requiring attunement.
Sentient items and legendary items and artifacts? Sure, I can see attunement for those.

There are so many other issues that actually need work.

As to "put the work into improving each martial sub class" we could have books written about that, but a +1 sword doesn't take that much effort.
And a +1 shield need not require attunement.

The trick as regards the +x weapons is:

(a) not distributing them like candy
(b) also having cool magical swords (like the moon touched family) that don't have +x but do have a neat feature.

[Vyke]

I have seen a total of two of them drop since 2014. How common are they in your games?
I'd like to see a compromise: on slot for Ioun stone, but adding another to the orbit would not consume another slot. Since they are so losable, this fits my sense of balance.
Given how they are portrayed in the Cugel the Clever/Dying Earth stories, their adaptation into D&D and AD&D was IMO a good idea and I am glad that they kept them.


This is actually how I run them in game. Your Ioun Stones share the same attunement. It's more efficient to stack them all on one person.... but what if other people want the buff? That's a party problem not mine.

Of course since I think I've handed out exactly 3 Ioun stones since the start of 5e, it's not a HUGE party problem.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is actually how I run them in game. Your Ioun Stones share the same attunement. It's more efficient to stack them all on one person.... but what if other people want the buff? That's a party problem not mine.

Of course since I think I've handed out exactly 3 Ioun stones since the start of 5e, it's not a HUGE party problem. Glad I am not alone in seeing that as a better way to implement Ioun stones. :smallwink:

[tKUUNK]

A lot of people here are underestimating the balancing factor of "this thing conspicuously floats around your head". If you're playing a game with a DM who keeps you on your toes by providing consequences for carelessness, this means:

1. You're not walking around town with the benefit of an Ioun Stone, because there are thieves, and because it will attract notice from your enemies. You become a beacon. The thing may as well be a tracking device.

2. You aren't sneaking anywhere with your Ioun Stone. It's a rock, possibly glowing, floating around you. It will give away your presence.

3. As mentioned, it can be snatched away quite easily. This isn't a problem unique to Ioun Stones, but it's more pronounced for them.

I had a Ioun Stone of Protection in a game, and often went without the benefit of using it because the risks of using one can be high.

Even despite these risks, Ioun Stones are supposed to be a big deal. Sure, that's my opinion. This may be one of those times when the thematic punch of an item outweighs mechanical arguments and even balance arguments. These things are unique and strange, and imo are meant to break the traditional balance just a tiny bit. Yeah, I'm leaning on DnD canon here...so shoot me. I still love the things that made this a great game decades ago (logical fallacy of "I'm old so I'm wise", yeah i just played that card punks!!). :D

So I totally agree with Segev's initial position. These things don't NEED to be taking up attunement. I also like the "Ioun Stones share one slot" idea.

[Dr.Samurai]

I agree with the OP and honestly I think there's too many items that require attunement and too few slots.

I have two swords right now, one works great for giants, and the other is better for generic mobs. We're fighting both in our campaign. I have to attune to both of these swords. Seems absolutely idiotic to me.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah, I'm leaning on DnD canon here...so shoot me. I still love the things that made this a great game decades ago (logical fallacy of "I'm old so I'm wise", yeah i just played that card punks!!). :D Care for a sip from my bottle of Geritol?

So I totally agree with Segev's initial position. These things don't NEED to be taking up attunement. I also like the "Ioun Stones share one slot" idea. The Wisdom and Age is strong within this one! (Well, particularly since you agree with me on that second part). :smallcool:

[Witty Username]

I agree with the OP and honestly I think there's too many items that require attunement and too few slots.


Not to mention there is no corellation between attunement and power of an item, or rarity and power of an item for that matter.

Actually considering it from a balance perspective would go a ways to making magic items more coherent and usable.
--
People are too worried about bounded accuracy if they think +2 without attunement is beyond the pale of a legendary item.
The belt of cloud giant strength is of that range and it sets strength to 29 that is something like a +10 bonus on average.

[Keravath]

Just a couple more thoughts - I skimmed a couple of pages of the thread so it may already have been mentioned.

Most of the non-attunement items in the game provide useful but minor benefits - cloak of the manta ray for example is swim speed 60' and breathe underwater.

However, ioun stones provide major benefits. Increased stats, increased AC, all sorts of both useful and powerful effects. Removing attunement for ioun stones results in characters being able to equip as many of them as they want at a time. +2 to each stat, increased AC, hp restoration etc.

The rejoinder is ... "Well the DM was stupid to give all of these to the characters". However, there are situations in which the DM may not have full control of the itemization. Organized play (Adventurers League or similar locally run West Marches type campaigns) is one example. The DM may not have control over the items the characters may have obtained from their previous adventures. In this case, the attunement limits prevent abuse of these quite powerful though also more fragile magic items. DMs aren't forced to create scenarios that destroy the magic items held by the players in order to reduce the power creep.

Finally, attunement is a DM decision - how many items can be attuned, what items can be attuned. Ioun stones, in my opinion, clearly offer benefits comparable to other items that do require attunement so I don't have a problem with the default case of ioun stones requiring attunement. However, there is absolutely nothing stopping an individual DM from changing that up for their game and removing attunement limits on ioun stones or even all items if they like. The DM controls the items and itemization in their campaign. They know what the party has found and what they might find. So, if a DM wants to change ioun stone attunment requirements, I'd say go for it.

Given that, I see no need to change the "default" attunement requirement for ioun stones.

[Dork_Forge]

Not to mention there is no corellation between attunement and power of an item, or rarity and power of an item for that matter.

Actually considering it from a balance perspective would go a ways to making magic items more coherent and usable.
--
People are too worried about bounded accuracy if they think +2 without attunement is beyond the pale of a legendary item.
The belt of cloud giant strength is of that range and it sets strength to 29 that is something like a +10 bonus on average.

The Belt of Storm Giant Strength is the one that sets it to 29, and that's a +4 bonus to Strength over a normal max of 20. Notably, Str is the only stat that has this kind of item, and it is the most limited stat in terms of skills and scope of effects.

[Segev]

Once again, the "Ioun Stones can give +2 to a stat" argument doesn't actually support them needing to be attunement, at least if you accept that other items are balanced. The tomes of +2 stat give all the same benefits (and more/better) with fewer downsides and no attunement.

[KorvinStarmast]

Once again, the "Ioun Stones can give +2 to a stat" argument doesn't actually support them needing to be attunement, at least if you accept that other items are balanced. The tomes of +2 stat give all the same benefits (and more/better) with fewer downsides and no attunement.
But they take a few days to digest ... :smallsmile:

[PhoenixPhyre]

But they take a few days to digest ... :smallsmile:

And are fundamentally consumables. Making a 1-use item consumable require attunement is a little...odd.

Edit:

But honestly, I'd worry about making all those "attunement by spellcaster" items more generally available first. Unless it directly buffs the caster's spells (such as a wand of the war mage) and thus doesn't make sense to be able to do without having spells, it should be usable by anyone. Looking especially at wands. Why in the world does a wand of fireballs require being a spell-caster? It has its own fixed spell DC...

[Chronos]

To all of those saying "Everything that gives bonuses to stats should require attunement", you have to deal with the fact that tomes don't. And they're not really "consumables": The item itself is consumed (at least, for the next century), but the bonus it gives isn't. Using a "consumable" tome is equivalent to keeping a "permanent" item forever.

A tome is better, in almost every way, than a stone. If it's balanced for tomes to not require attunement, then it's balanced for stones to not require attunement. The only argument for stones requiring attunement is "the book says so", but that's no argument at all when the discussion is about what the books should say.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To all of those saying "Everything that gives bonuses to stats should require attunement", you have to deal with the fact that tomes don't. And they're not really "consumables": The item itself is consumed (at least, for the next century), but the bonus it gives isn't. Using a "consumable" tome is equivalent to keeping a "permanent" item forever.

A tome is better, in almost every way, than a stone. If it's balanced for tomes to not require attunement, then it's balanced for stones to not require attunement. The only argument for stones requiring attunement is "the book says so", but that's no argument at all when the discussion is about what the books should say.

Then the books should say (imo) that using a manual to gain stats should permanently consume an attunement slot.

[Dork_Forge]

I really don't understand the pointing at tomes thing. Not only are they a fundamentally different item, they are an exception.

There are far more stat altering items that require attunement than don't. Then there's the whole 'if you accept that all other items are balanced' thing.

Obviously the magic item list isn't balanced, just like the spell list isn't. None of it is a convincing argument that ioun stones should drop attunement outside of the odd DM ruling so.

Nevermind the false notion that the whole point is to have a cloud of stones, there is literally no support for that in 5e and the only thing I've seen in this thread for it is art from older editions.

That's no more convincing than saying you're expected to have piles of magical rings because you've got ten fingers and toes and pointing to the Mandarin to reinforce your point.

[Witty Username]

Why in the world does a wand of fireballs require being a spell-caster?

Why does casting spells require being a spellcaster? Wands and scrolls cast spells, so it requires a spellcaster to use them, you might as well ask why everyone isn't proficient with all weapons and armor types.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why does casting spells require being a spellcaster? Wands and scrolls cast spells, so it requires a spellcaster to use them, you might as well ask why everyone isn't proficient with all weapons and armor types.

But the whole point is that it's the item casting the spell, not you. Does it use your spell list? No. Does it use your spell slots or statistics? No. It's a gun with bullets in it.

[Witty Username]

But the whole point is that it's the item casting the spell, not you. Does it use your spell list? No. Does it use your spell slots or statistics? No. It's a gun with bullets in it.

And you don't need any experience with guns to use one properly? you still need the casting time, and activate the item. Nothing in item descriptions indicate they should be easy or straight forward to use, classes like thief even suggest the opposite, requiring a specialized skill set to use such items.

[Amnestic]

I really don't understand the pointing at tomes thing. Not only are they a fundamentally different item, they are an exception.

Yes, they are different, but they're being compared because people brought up ioun stone stat enhancement as a reason for their attunement, so pointing at another stat enhancement that doesn't require it is the logical response.



There are far more stat altering items that require attunement than don't. Then there's the whole 'if you accept that all other items are balanced' thing.

The other stat items you're talking about set a stat. They don't improve on a character's existing base. A bunch of them also break the "20" hardcap on a stat - which, again, Ioun Stones do not.

Setting a stat is often far more valuable than improving it (since it allows you to not invest ASIs in that stat, and instead put them elsewhere), so it's not hard to see why a set-stat might require attunement but an enhancement-stat item might not.



Nevermind the false notion that the whole point is to have a cloud of stones, there is literally no support for that in 5e and the only thing I've seen in this thread for it is art from older editions.

Their existence at all is built off of older editions, which is why they're so weird with "snatching" and destruction rules which most magic items don't reference at all. If the mechanics are meant to evoke that older edition existence, then why not the aesthetics as well? It's an odd middleground of callbacks that don't actually satisfy.

[stoutstien]

And you don't need any experience with guns to use one properly? you still need the casting time, and activate the item. Nothing in item descriptions indicate they should be easy or straight forward to use, classes like thief even suggest the opposite, requiring a specialized skill set to use such items.

Besides wand of magic missile doesn't and wand of fear needs attunement but doesn't specify a spellcaster. Which also begs the question on what a "spellcaster" is. Would a racial or feat sourced spell count?

There is no internal logic here. It's just words that they thought looked good and an editor asleep at the wheel

[KorvinStarmast]

and an editor asleep at the wheel While true, we have a dwarf fighter in our group who appreciates his six gun (wand of magic missiles).

[Chronos]

Quoth stoutstien:

Which also begs the question on what a "spellcaster" is. Would a racial or feat sourced spell count?
Really, almost everyone in 5e is a spellcaster. All wizards, sorcerers, bards, warlocks, clerics, and druids, of course. All paladins and rangers after 1st level. One of the three PHB fighter subclasses, one of the three PHB rogue subclasses (and another one that isn't but can use "spellcaster" items anyway), one of the two barbarian subclasses (totem barbarians get a couple of rituals), two of the three monk subclasses (and eventually, at very high level, all of them). Among races, two of the three elf subraces, one of two gnomes, tieflings. Anyone with the Magic Initiate or Ritual Caster feat. It's possible to make a spell-less character, but you pretty much have to actually try for it: Out of 20-something characters the folks in my group have made, I think only two were non-spellcasters.

[Segev]

Assuming multiple copies of the same item do not stack their benefits (and they do not, per the rules of 5e), nobody has yet been able to explain why removing attunement from Ioun Stones would be a problem for the game. The only argument I've seen that comes close is the complaint about +2 stat items, but even if the Ioun Stones of (say) +2 Constitution stacked with each other (and they do not), the tome of +2 Constitution DOES stack with itself (precisely because, once used, it's no longer an ongoing magical effect, in the same way that two cure wounds spells or two fireball spells stack their effects), and the tome of +2 Constitution does not have an attunement requirement.

There have been arguments made that Ioun Stones being able to be passed around make them so much more flexible than tomes, but I have never, ever seen such "flexibility" be exploited in a game in a way that would make anybody involved say, "We definitely should never trade the Ioun Stone for a permanent, stackable, cap-breaking +2 to the stat on one person." Ioun Stones, like most items, usually sit on one PC for a very long time, and only shuffle around if there's a much more solid reason than "well, +1 to escape grapples might benefit the wizard who has a -2 to those rolls right now."

So, unless you can explain why the tomes are not broken but attunement-less Ioun stones are, I am not seeing there being any consistent arguments for why attunement is necessary on Ioun Stones. The arguments I'm seeing amount to, "Chevrolets need to be taxed more in sales tax than Fords because Chevrolets can come in colors other than black."

[stoutstien]

Assuming multiple copies of the same item do not stack their benefits (and they do not, per the rules of 5e), nobody has yet been able to explain why removing attunement from Ioun Stones would be a problem for the game. The only argument I've seen that comes close is the complaint about +2 stat items, but even if the Ioun Stones of (say) +2 Constitution stacked with each other (and they do not), the tome of +2 Constitution DOES stack with itself (precisely because, once used, it's no longer an ongoing magical effect, in the same way that two cure wounds spells or two fireball spells stack their effects), and the tome of +2 Constitution does not have an attunement requirement.

There have been arguments made that Ioun Stones being able to be passed around make them so much more flexible than tomes, but I have never, ever seen such "flexibility" be exploited in a game in a way that would make anybody involved say, "We definitely should never trade the Ioun Stone for a permanent, stackable, cap-breaking +2 to the stat on one person." Ioun Stones, like most items, usually sit on one PC for a very long time, and only shuffle around if there's a much more solid reason than "well, +1 to escape grapples might benefit the wizard who has a -2 to those rolls right now."

So, unless you can explain why the tomes are not broken but attunement-less Ioun stones are, I am not seeing there being any consistent arguments for why attunement is necessary on Ioun Stones. The arguments I'm seeing amount to, "Chevrolets need to be taxed more in sales tax than Fords because Chevrolets can come in colors other than black."

I don't think it will break anything but it definitely wouldn't add much either. The entire magic item subsystem is a mess so any changes you make need to address this or it's just shuffling stuff around for no real gain.

Remove attunement from ioun stones? Yay more number for your numbers..not even worth my time as a DM to give it more than a passing thought.

[Dork_Forge]

Assuming multiple copies of the same item do not stack their benefits (and they do not, per the rules of 5e), nobody has yet been able to explain why removing attunement from Ioun Stones would be a problem for the game. The only argument I've seen that comes close is the complaint about +2 stat items, but even if the Ioun Stones of (say) +2 Constitution stacked with each other (and they do not), the tome of +2 Constitution DOES stack with itself (precisely because, once used, it's no longer an ongoing magical effect, in the same way that two cure wounds spells or two fireball spells stack their effects), and the tome of +2 Constitution does not have an attunement requirement.

There have been arguments made that Ioun Stones being able to be passed around make them so much more flexible than tomes, but I have never, ever seen such "flexibility" be exploited in a game in a way that would make anybody involved say, "We definitely should never trade the Ioun Stone for a permanent, stackable, cap-breaking +2 to the stat on one person." Ioun Stones, like most items, usually sit on one PC for a very long time, and only shuffle around if there's a much more solid reason than "well, +1 to escape grapples might benefit the wizard who has a -2 to those rolls right now."

So, unless you can explain why the tomes are not broken but attunement-less Ioun stones are, I am not seeing there being any consistent arguments for why attunement is necessary on Ioun Stones. The arguments I'm seeing amount to, "Chevrolets need to be taxed more in sales tax than Fords because Chevrolets can come in colors other than black."

I did actually address this, why are you focused on the +2 stat stones? What about the +1 prof? The +1 AC? The absorption one?

There is no good reason to remove attunement from the stones, besides you liking the image, which seems poorly substantiated in any edition, of having several stones floating around for no real cost.

If as a DM it's something you want to do, then go nuts, if you want a cogent argument why it shouldn't be done in the game at all: It's needless powercreep and some stone effects most definitely are powerful enough/have analogues in attuned items.

The actual impact of removing attunement is completely nebulous since it's entirely dependent on the magic item landscape of the campaign in question and the PCs in question.

[Forum Explorer]

Any time one starts discussing 'the point' of something*, it is quickly going to end up being highly subjective -- to the point where 'the point, to me' is an entirely reasonable framing. It is true that nothing from this edition has to adhere to visions, reasons, or incarnations from previous editions. Heck, a huge portion of the things people have had trouble with any given edition always seems to be something that was kept over from a previous edition despite the reason for it existing or the context in which it existed being absent -- example: porting the 2e AD&D spells over to 3e without adjusting for wildly different hit-point scales and likelihood of getting save-or-suck/die spells to land is what made high-level 3e such a rocket-tag experience. At the same time, 5e absolutely started out as banking heavily on the provenance of previous editions, and in general benefited from having thing X being recognizably just a subtle (/necessary) tweak of 'thing X, as it was in some previous edition.' At least to the point where exceptions are often notable and annoying for some of the base -- example: Gnolls, and there are a lot of people rather miffed about them suddenly changing from the 'pragmatic survivalist humanoids that tend to be aligned with evil' to 'demon infused and wow you need a good explanation for your CG gnoll ranger now.' There's no right way to do this, excepting that, for the devs, neither dogmatic adherence to previous thematics nor excessive deviation without obvious benefit are likely to please the most people. Either way, it seems imminently reasonable to posit 'a point' to how something worked in previous editions, and then to question/perhaps complain that it was changed in the current one without obvious reasoning or benefit.
*the number of times I tried defining the very concept without it being tautological probably is a good indicator of this.

I mean, you bring up Gnolls as a counter example, but it's also a good example that for all the 5e has taken fluff and use from previous editions it also has diverged wildly from previous editions at the same time, sometimes to its detriment. Like a lot of the monster fluff is really world specific, and even then is (IMO) way too common to 'blame' the existence of the species on some god or demon.


Assuming multiple copies of the same item do not stack their benefits (and they do not, per the rules of 5e), nobody has yet been able to explain why removing attunement from Ioun Stones would be a problem for the game. The only argument I've seen that comes close is the complaint about +2 stat items, but even if the Ioun Stones of (say) +2 Constitution stacked with each other (and they do not), the tome of +2 Constitution DOES stack with itself (precisely because, once used, it's no longer an ongoing magical effect, in the same way that two cure wounds spells or two fireball spells stack their effects), and the tome of +2 Constitution does not have an attunement requirement.

There have been arguments made that Ioun Stones being able to be passed around make them so much more flexible than tomes, but I have never, ever seen such "flexibility" be exploited in a game in a way that would make anybody involved say, "We definitely should never trade the Ioun Stone for a permanent, stackable, cap-breaking +2 to the stat on one person." Ioun Stones, like most items, usually sit on one PC for a very long time, and only shuffle around if there's a much more solid reason than "well, +1 to escape grapples might benefit the wizard who has a -2 to those rolls right now."

So, unless you can explain why the tomes are not broken but attunement-less Ioun stones are, I am not seeing there being any consistent arguments for why attunement is necessary on Ioun Stones. The arguments I'm seeing amount to, "Chevrolets need to be taxed more in sales tax than Fords because Chevrolets can come in colors other than black."

I could totally argue that the tomes are broken. It gives you a permanent boost to a stat and can't be removed or stolen or anything like that. They don't take up an attunement slot. And are apparently as rare as well, Ioun Stones. Yeah they can't be reused, but whatever. It most parties there will be someone who will want the bonus no matter what stat it is. So it will aways be used. And from the way they are described (it takes a century to recharge) I'd say its rarity should be much higher.


But as others have said, the magic item system is a mess. I take it as a guideline rather than as strict rules because it doesn't always make that much sense.

Would someone having multiple Ioun Stones break the game? Hardly. Or I should say that there are much more worrisome things than stacking Ioun Stones, and if I can handle those, the Ioun Stones should be easy. But on the other hand, does making them require attunement make them useless? Well again, no. I have never, ever maxed out the attunement slots in my party (and am flabbergasted at the story on the previous page that one character has two magic swords. Does no one else in the party use swords? Or do they have such an excess of magic weapons that they are beyond maxed out?), and an Ioun Stone is useful for pretty much everyone. If you already have an Ioun Stone, I imagine someone else in the party will be demanding the next one rather than letting one person hog all of them.

[Amnestic]

Does no one else in the party use swords?

Without speaking for the person in question, one of my game's current parties is:
Wildfire druid, arcane cleric, Scout rogue (ranged), Paladin (with a glaive, currently) and a warlock/bard multiclass. Only the Paladin would potentially want to use magic swords, but he's also running Sentinel, so the extra reach loss would hurt from switching out from his glaive.

Definitely possible that there'd only be one character who wants to use magic weapons like that for anything other than a paperweight in a bunch of parties if you're caster heavy.

[Forum Explorer]

Without speaking for the person in question, one of my game's current parties is:
Wildfire druid, arcane cleric, Scout rogue (ranged), Paladin (with a glaive, currently) and a warlock/bard multiclass. Only the Paladin would potentially want to use magic swords, but he's also running Sentinel, so the extra reach loss would hurt from switching out from his glaive.

Definitely possible that there'd only be one character who wants to use magic weapons like that for anything other than a paperweight in a bunch of parties if you're caster heavy.

I can certainly see that as a possibility, but then my question is why is someone giving two magic items that only one person can use? Unless the whole point is that he has to make a meaningful choice on how to manage his attunement slots (in which case attunement is working as intended and the player's complaint is exactly what the DM wants)

[Amnestic]

I can only speak for myself as a DM but my magic item distribution is a combination of things that are tailored towards what I think the party will want (because I want them to have nice things!) and randomly rolled on magic item/loot tables (because I want the verisimilitude of not always getting stuff you want too!). Sometimes that means they'll get stuff they want anyway, or stuff they might not think they want now but might want later, and sometimes it'll be stuff that's basically worthless because it doesn't slot into anyone's build and never will.

But, typically, I also run there being magic item shops (with limited/specific things they sell) where at minimum said "worthless" items can still be traded into gold, which can be used elsewhere...but if you did have two magic swords that were both useful in different ways, would you want to sell one of them? Maybe! But keeping both might be more valuable too.

[KorvinStarmast]

I mean, you bring up Gnolls as a counter example, but it's also a good example that for all the 5e has taken fluff and use from previous editions it also has diverged wildly from previous editions at the same time, sometimes to its detriment. The gnolls as roughly demonspawn was in improvement, not a detriment. The last thing D&D needed was another "human in hats" race.


I could totally argue that the tomes are broken....I'd say its rarity should be much higher.
They are very rare.


Would someone having multiple Ioun Stones break the game? Hardly. Or I should say that there are much more worrisome things than stacking Ioun Stones, and if I can handle those, the Ioun Stones should be easy. But on the other hand, does making them require attunement make them useless? Well again, no. I have never, ever maxed out the attunement slots in my party...If you already have an Ioun Stone, I imagine someone else in the party will be demanding the next one rather than letting one person hog all of them. As to that last bit, Bingo!

The group I have running around (they are 2/3rds of the way through Against the Giants, and are chasing down a crystal dragon as a side quest) ... have 3 of the 5 with 3 attuned items. (Level 12). The two others have two. And they have discovered that they need to make choices.

Which is Good, IMO. I have engineered the magic item finds to have consumables of late. After all of that hording, they are finally choosing to use consumables as "one of a kind neat things" and it tends to pay off. Working well.

[Willie the Duck]

I mean, you bring up Gnolls as a counter example, but it's also a good example that for all the 5e has taken fluff and use from previous editions it also has diverged wildly from previous editions at the same time, sometimes to its detriment. Like a lot of the monster fluff is really world specific, and even then is (IMO) way too common to 'blame' the existence of the species on some god or demon.
I'm really not sure what to take away from this. I think you are just restating my point: gnolls are things they changed wildly from previous editions, perhaps to a detriment (if we can call some people not liking it a detriment). FWIW, I agree that D&D leans too often on gods or greater demons (or epic NPCs), but I'm not sure which way of what position that is meant to support.


But as others have said, the magic item system is a mess. I take it as a guideline rather than as strict rules because it doesn't always make that much sense.

Would someone having multiple Ioun Stones break the game? Hardly. Or I should say that there are much more worrisome things than stacking Ioun Stones, and if I can handle those, the Ioun Stones should be easy. But on the other hand, does making them require attunement make them useless? Well again, no. I have never, ever maxed out the attunement slots in my party (and am flabbergasted at the story on the previous page that one character has two magic swords. Does no one else in the party use swords? Or do they have such an excess of magic weapons that they are beyond maxed out?), and an Ioun Stone is useful for pretty much everyone. If you already have an Ioun Stone, I imagine someone else in the party will be demanding the next one rather than letting one person hog all of them.
On some level, magic items have always been both a mess and good at 'breaking' the game, on some levels deliberately so (because people like discovering nifty items which have actual significance in-game). Ioun Stones are actually relatively tame in that the 'merely' break things like expected stat distributions (which are real, but you do the same thing by having rolled attributes or the like). Honestly, I've found that a wand of fireballs or boots of flying throws the PC-opposition and intra-party balances out of whack more than some +2 to stats here and there.

The two swords I can see. Especially if others have weapons-specific builds and if the DM sticks to the DMG and has most of the named/defined weapons be swords.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ioun Stones are actually relatively tame in that the 'merely' break things like expected stat distributions (which are real, but you do the same thing by having rolled attributes or the like). Honestly, I've found that a wand of fireballs or boots of flying throws the PC-opposition and intra-party balances out of whack more than some +2 to stats here and there. Massive agree.

[Dr.Samurai]

But as others have said, the magic item system is a mess. I take it as a guideline rather than as strict rules because it doesn't always make that much sense.
I think this is a good take-away.

But on the other hand, does making them require attunement make them useless? Well again, no.
I love the aesthetic of seasoned adventurers having looted many tombs and ruins and having the gear to show for it. Making so many items require attunement and limiting attunement to 3 per person is really restrictive on the types of things you can use.

I have never, ever maxed out the attunement slots in my party (and am flabbergasted at the story on the previous page that one character has two magic swords. Does no one else in the party use swords? Or do they have such an excess of magic weapons that they are beyond maxed out?)
Party:

1. Human Rune Knight Fighter
2. Halfling Moon Druid
3. Elven Hunter Ranger
4. Human Open Hand Monk

The Swords:

1. Sentient Greatsword
2. Frost Brand Greatsword

So... the only other person in my party proficient with either sword is the Ranger, and he is Dexterity primary. He is kitted out for melee with a Flametongue Shortsword and +1 Shield if he has to, but otherwise uses an Oathbow.

As far as maxing out attunement:

1. Fighter: I am attuned to the sentient greatsword, the frost brand greatsword, and a cursed armor of vulnerability (that is actually a relic item from my deity, so has potential to get better; currently vulnerable to bludgeoning damage in a campaign fighting giants so... very touch and go lol) [Everyone is amused that my killer devotee of Erythnul is now much more cautious when the giants have distance on us.]
2. Druid: Staff of Frost, Boots of Striding and Springing
3. Ranger: Oathbow, Flametongue short sword
4. Monk: Ring of Mind Shielding, Ioun Stone of Insight

We are level 12. We have some potions as well, and the monk wields a +2 dagger and has a javelin of lightning which he can put to good use with his mobility, but neither require attunement. But as you can see, I am maxed out, and each other player is one slot away from being maxed out (and that may be because I'm forgetting an item or two). We're maybe about half way through this campaign, and the plan is to take these characters to the next module that follows this one so... I'm sure we'll run into more attuneable items.

As a matter of personal opinion, I don't find the "which one of these cool magic items do I want to use and which ones do I leave home" a fun or interesting choice to make.

[Segev]

If Ioun Stones require attunement - as they do - then the next one found may well be another item tossed onto the pile of stuff they sell if everyone's attunement slots are full.

IT truly does depend on the game, but I am in several where this is an active issue for the party; those who have free attunement slots don't care about the item that has become available.

This can happen even with an Ioun Stone, particularly the +2 stat ones. "Eh? I guess my strength 8 sorcerer could take the +2 strength Ioun Stone, but I'm not going to be letting it stay if we find a different attunement item that is better for me."

And I'm "fixated" on the +2 stat boost ones because they compare very neatly to the +2 tomes, which are just better in almost every way. The other Ioun Stones are nice, too, and some are even nicer than the +2 stat ones. They still are not going to break anything if +2 stat boost tomes aren't.

[Witty Username]

Besides wand of magic missile doesn't and wand of fear needs attunement but doesn't specify a spellcaster.

That is a legacy thing, in previous editions some wands were easier or more difficult to use, requiring different things from their user. Now they look out of place, because they are as the original context is gone.

[Schwann145]

Wands and Staves and such have never really made sense. Even in the D&D novels, anyone could use them; it's only in the game itself you have to be a caster to activate them.

The spell is stored in the item in it's entirety, and the only thing necessary to activate it is the keyword... but you have to know how to cast magic yourself or speaking the activation doesn't work?

Makes zero sense.

[Witty Username]

Wands and Staves and such have never really made sense. Even in the D&D novels, anyone could use them; it's only in the game itself you have to be a caster to activate them.


Eh, I will admit to not being terribly well read on the subject but the only example I am aware of is the blue crystal staff, which between it and the discs of Mishakel could turn people into clerics. And was from ages ago.

[Dork_Forge]

If Ioun Stones require attunement - as they do - then the next one found may well be another item tossed onto the pile of stuff they sell if everyone's attunement slots are full.

You can say this about literally any attunement item. The only issue here seems to be that you want to have a bunch of stones, that's it. If their effects were scattered across rings and amulets and didn't share a moniker you'd probably not care. You may also just dislike attunement, idk.


IT truly does depend on the game, but I am in several where this is an active issue for the party; those who have free attunement slots don't care about the item that has become available.

This can happen even with an Ioun Stone, particularly the +2 stat ones. "Eh? I guess my strength 8 sorcerer could take the +2 strength Ioun Stone, but I'm not going to be letting it stay if we find a different attunement item that is better for me."

This is predicated on the assumption that all loot the party gets must be appealing or useful, which is just not the case with random loot or in line with any degree of verisimilitude.

Tailoring loot is just fine as a DMing style, but there's nothing wrong with PCs feeling this way about loot. Those are the items they give to sidekicks, sell for cash, or trade for favours. Or heck, forget about it in their inventory until they go diving for solutions to a problem. e.g. only the Bard is well-spoken enough to talk their way through the ball, but escaping will be risky with their low Athletics on the climb out the Lord's bedroom window. Luckily the party found that stone of Strength a while back.


And I'm "fixated" on the +2 stat boost ones because they compare very neatly to the +2 tomes, which are just better in almost every way. The other Ioun Stones are nice, too, and some are even nicer than the +2 stat ones. They still are not going to break anything if +2 stat boost tomes aren't.

You want to remove attunement for all stones, and you're fixating on the +2s because you can make an easy comparison. But the stone's abilities vary wildly in useability and power, making any decision from such a comparison painting a broad stroke without real consideration. You're also picking and choosing your comparison, since a Weapon of Warning (which I believe I already mentioned in this thread) works similar to the stone of Awareness, both require attunement, so what's the justification there?

But since you don't want to consider anything but the +2s, fine. The only point of comparison is that they also 'give +2' to a stat and are the same rarity. So let's actually compare them, shall we?

Rarity - This means little, rarity is a correlation at best. See: winged boots vs wings of flying. Similar function, but the lower rarity is obviously just better. Cloak and Ring of protection are identical in function, but different rarities. Arguably the tomes are mislabeled here, even Very Rare would have a meaningful impact on a world of long-lived races/individuals with a 100-year recharge. TL:DR mentioning their rarity in a comparison doesn't really mean much in the conversation.

Type of item - Tomes have such a long recharge time they are effectively consumable in practice. What's more, unlike Ioun stones, it's entirely possible to find a tome that is useless because it's recharging. Based on effect and recharge they should really be legendary, but realistically they should just drop the recharge.

Time to activate - Ioun stones require just an hour to get up and running. A tome takes 48 hours within 6 days to activate. That's so intensive it essentially means that they're only useable during downtime.

Effect - They do both give +2 to a certain stat, but the tome is a permanent effect that also raises the stat cap.

But I'm even more baffled by the claim that the stone's 'can't break anything if the tomes don't.' It's hard to really 'break the game' in general, but this comparison is utterly baseless. The game already has ways for PCs to exceed a 20 in a given stat. A lot of monsters already do it. Comparing the effect of a tome's +2 to something like the Reserve stone is apples to oranges. One is (most likely) a 5% increase in success chances, with the potential to not help at all. The other allows spells to be passed around or stockpiled. Arguably it allows you to apply class/subclass effects to spells that you don't have normally.




Wands and Staves and such have never really made sense. Even in the D&D novels, anyone could use them; it's only in the game itself you have to be a caster to activate them.

The spell is stored in the item in it's entirety, and the only thing necessary to activate it is the keyword... but you have to know how to cast magic yourself or speaking the activation doesn't work?

Makes zero sense.

Novels don't really seem relevant here, I remember reading on the wiki that at one point Drizzt put Bracers of the Blinding Strike on his ankles instead of his wrists because he found it hard to change direction with his arms moving that fast.

A neat thing in a novel, but obviously not how a magic item in the game would actually function.

I'm not a fan of the 'must be a spellcaster for this item that casts spells for you' but it makes as much sense as items that require you to be a certain class to benefit from them.

[Dr.Samurai]

Imagine if magic weapons and armor said “requires attunement by barbarian, fighter, Paladin, Ranger, or rogue”.

[Dork_Forge]

Imagine if magic weapons and armor said “requires attunement by barbarian, fighter, Paladin, Ranger, or rogue”.

If certain ones, like wands, did? I think that would be cool and fill a missing piece of magic item's lopsidedness that currently exists.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If certain ones, like wands, did? I think that would be cool and fill a missing piece of magic item's lopsidedness that currently exists.

It's not just wands. It's also rods, most staffs, and a whole chunk of other items.

Personally, I'd find it amusing. I'd prefer to gate it on things like "having Extra Attack from your class," because I find explicitly-class-based attunement to be mostly an anti-pattern. The exception is something like the Holy Avenger. And even that could be "a lawful good character with Extra Attack and proficiency in <X>". Because a lot of paladins these days don't exactly fit the Holy Avenger model, especially the dark and edgy[1] types.

[1] the sword being more of the bright and edgy type.

[KorvinStarmast]

Imagine if magic weapons and armor said “requires attunement by barbarian, fighter, Paladin, Ranger, or rogue”. That would still be bad for martials, in general, as it eats an attunement slot.
Ask me about my cursed sword, which costs me an attunement slot. (Sword of Vengeance).
Nobody else in the party has figured out that my sword is cursed, we are at level 16 (DM and I have agreed that I role play the curse aspect and no meta gaming by telling the cleric that I have a cursed Sword of Vengeance).
We still have a +2 battle axe in the bag of holding, which would be a better weapon for a lot of reasons, yet I stick to my sword.
When I occasionally run at someone who has injured me, it doesn't get any of the other players (all of whom are veterans of multiple editions) to ask about why I sometimes do that. (The wisdom save rolls are whispered to the GM when they happen, VTT Game).
A regular +1 sword does not eat an attunement slot. It is a part of the curse, as I see it, for this cursed sword to do so.

[Dr.Samurai]

That would still be bad for martials, in general, as it eats an attunement slot.
Wholeheartedly agree. I would prefer less attunement, for reasons stated earlier in this thread. But I'm not surprised that PCs can't use the items with spells unless they too are spellcasters, meanwhile the vast majority of weapons and armors are open to anyone that can wield them, and some of them even grant proficiency to boot.

Ask me about my cursed sword, which costs me an attunement slot. (Sword of Vengeance).
Nobody else in the party has figured out that my sword is cursed, we are at level 16 (DM and I have agreed that I role play the curse aspect and no meta gaming by telling the cleric that I have a cursed Sword of Vengeance).
We still have a +2 battle axe in the bag of holding, which would be a better weapon for a lot of reasons, yet I stick to my sword.
When I occasionally run at someone who has injured me, it doesn't get any of the other players (all of whom are veterans of multiple editions) to ask about why I sometimes do that. (The wisdom save rolls are whispered to the GM when they happen, VTT Game).
I LOVE that this is unknown to your party. It helps to get over how easy it is to Remove Curse when cursed items are attuned to. Great arrangement between you and the DM!

A regular +1 sword does not eat an attunement slot. It is a part of the curse, as I see it, for this cursed sword to do so.
I tend to agree. I too am currently sporting a cursed item; the Armor of Vulnerability (Resistance to Piercing, Vulnerability to Bludgeoning and Slashing). It's like... the last thing you'd want to be wearing while invading giant strongholds lol. And it is taking up an attunement slot. So I totally understand. (In my case though, I had asked the DM if he'd be interested in bringing in the Piety system, and when I found this super awesome Armor of Invulnerability Vulnerability, he incorporated that into the Piety system and made it a relic. So I have the ability to improve it if my piety improves.)

[Segev]

If I'm reading things right, the only solid argument for Ioun Stones needing attunement is the non-+2 stones being strong. Is this accurate?

I will go so far as to say that they should, if that's the problem, be raised to Legendary rarity, rather than given attunement.

Because I remain convinced that the Ioun Stone's thematic purpose is to be the hard-to-get magic item that you can use no matter what other items you have already, based on what they always have been. The "eh, legacy from older editions is meaningless" idea is silly, when they have legacy mechanics in place and would probably be called something else if they weren't legacy items.

[KorvinStarmast]

If I'm reading things right, the only solid argument for Ioun Stones needing attunement is the non-+2 stones being strong. Is this accurate?

I will go so far as to say that they should, if that's the problem, be raised to Legendary rarity, rather than given attunement.

Because I remain convinced that the Ioun Stone's thematic purpose is to be the hard-to-get magic item that you can use no matter what other items you have already, based on what they always have been. The "eh, legacy from older editions is meaningless" idea is silly, when they have legacy mechanics in place and would probably be called something else if they weren't legacy items.
Just out of curiosity: how many rare or very rare items are typically in the PCs possession in the games you have played?

PS: my suggestion is "No, don't make them all legendary."

Three are already legendary: Regeneration, Mastery, and Greater Absorption
Four are rare: Protection, (which is less effective than RoP or Cloak of Protection); Sustenance (you don't need to eat/drink); Reserve (roughly equivalent to Pearl of Power, but more flexible), Awareness (can't be surprised).
All of the rest (7) are very rare. (Attribute buffs and Absorption).

TBH, for their rarity, they are each somewhat underwhelming. You can also argue that they are almost a consumable, since they can be grabbed or otherwise dropped/lost.

[Dork_Forge]

Because I remain convinced that the Ioun Stone's thematic purpose is to be the hard-to-get magic item that you can use no matter what other items you have already, based on what they always have been. The "eh, legacy from older editions is meaningless" idea is silly, when they have legacy mechanics in place and would probably be called something else if they weren't legacy items.

An Ioun stone's thematic purpose is to look neat floating around your head. What you're arguing for is a mechanical purpose. So I will ask again. What proof is there that the point of Ioun stones is to have a bunch of them at once?

Whilst waiting for this answer I'll present a cursory search into Ioun stones from the perspective of someone that started in 5e:

- The 5e DMG gives us no written description or art of a person using multiple stones, let alone 3 or more.

- The Forgotten Realms wiki doesn't really support this as an expectation either, whilst there is old art of a character with multiple stones there is also art of a character with a single stone 'and other bling.' It does, however, detail lesser stones that could only be used one at a time. This is further against the case as it goes on to mention how some stones would burn out (1 in 20 chance) like a used-up wand. Then there's the notion of mounting them in something like a dagger, removing the floating argument entirely. Nothing to really support your notion here, but some evidence to push back against it.

- The above wiki does go into their in-world creation though, and the reason for their existence seemed to be simply that the Netherese people thought you could only enchant small stuff at the time (though different origins are presented). Even the notable collections section is prefaced with 'Iound stones were, at all times, quite rate and just as hard to acquire.'

- Their meta-history is routed in IOUN stones from Jack Vance's Dying Earth series, which don't really do the same thing as far as I can see.

- Looking at the 3.5 wiki/SRD I also don't really understand the argument you're pushing. By the looks of what a humanoid can wear, it looks like there could be 12 active worn items at a time, not considering held items. The level to craft stones seems to be 12th level, between what you can wear/carry and the rarity of Ioun stones/level to craft them, I'm not seeing a realistic scenario where PCs are walking around with a cloud of them period, never mind that it's presenting them with a tangible 'slot benefit.'

- In 4e they seem to occupy the 'Head Slot' and I don't see anything in their description that allows multiple to occupy the same slot. So it looks like clouds of stones weren't a thing in that issue either.

So outside of 5e and the attunement system, there doesn't seem to be anything supporting clouds of stones besides a bit of art and that you personally like the idea.

And that's fine, make a change based on what you like, but arguing that they serve a certain purpose or whatever else doesn't seem to be grounded in anything.

So Segev, is there something I overlooked? Is there really anything more than some art and your personal preference? Are players in your experience ever actually getting/crafting enough stones for this to matter? Or is this just a thought experiment that spawned a thread?

[Segev]

This is the first I've heard of their role in 4e. I would have thought them taking the head slot stupid, too. The FR thing about "lesser stones" points to true Ioun Stones as being what I say they are, if they had to invent a "lesser" stone to make a slotted item.

The long and the short of it is, why bother having an Ioun Stone at all if it requires attunement, when there are other items that are just as good that aren't as vulnerable to being snatched and can be carried more subtly?

Ultimately, I base this on their history, which I don't think your research undermines my interpretation of, at least not as presented.

You could try to make the case that 5e went aaaaalllllll the way back to Dying Earth and utterly ignored/forgot that Ioun Stones existed in earlier editions, and therefore only that representation could possibly be relevant. I honestly don't know what they were represented as, there. I think the Ioun Stone history through 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition is much more likely an influence.

To be totally honest, I think the developers who pulled them into 5e thought, "Copy the 3e item; they're kind-of iconic. And make them take attunement because...eh, why not? They're powerful magic items, traditionally, and powerful items require attunement, right?" I think they put zero thought into how they actually were used in prior editions.

[Dork_Forge]

This is the first I've heard of their role in 4e. I would have thought them taking the head slot stupid, too. The FR thing about "lesser stones" points to true Ioun Stones as being what I say they are, if they had to invent a "lesser" stone to make a slotted item.

Still and Ioun stone and then there is the 1 in 20 burn out combined with the rarity, the point being that amassing of cloud of them seems very difficult/unlikely.


The long and the short of it is, why bother having an Ioun Stone at all if it requires attunement, when there are other items that are just as good that aren't as vulnerable to being snatched and can be carried more subtly?

...Because it's a magic item and either you have nothing to lose (no better items, nothing taking up the attunement, a sidekick/minion to give it to etc.) or more importantly you're a player and you don't dictate magic items in this manner.


Ultimately, I base this on their history, which I don't think your research undermines my interpretation of, at least not as presented.

You've still given nothing to support this. You're just saying it's based in history. Let's simplify and say that we have 6 instances of 'history' to look at here (including their inception in Dying Earth and editions 1-5 grouping together the .5s Essentials, etc. etc.).

Out of 6 examples of Ioun stones 3 explicitly do not support your view, one of which being the source material.

Finding easy answers to 1e and 2e is hard, but it looks like the notion of 'slots' didn't exist until 3e, however it looks like absolute limits on number of items does exist, which Ioun stones wouldn't circumvent.

So, on cursory look it's only really 3e though would support what you're talking about, one out of six potential options, and even then the benefit seems mostly a thought exercise.

What history are you actually talking about that I'm not finding?


You could try to make the case that 5e went aaaaalllllll the way back to Dying Earth and utterly ignored/forgot that Ioun Stones existed in earlier editions, and therefore only that representation could possibly be relevant. I honestly don't know what they were represented as, there. I think the Ioun Stone history through 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition is much more likely an influence.

And I'd like you to share that history, like I've been asking you to.


To be totally honest, I think the developers who pulled them into 5e thought, "Copy the 3e item; they're kind-of iconic. And make them take attunement because...eh, why not? They're powerful magic items, traditionally, and powerful items require attunement, right?" I think they put zero thought into how they actually were used in prior editions.


No, I think they had a mechanic to limit magic item use and applied it partially because some stones warranted it powerwise and partially because it explains why an item would float around you specifically in a mechanical sense. It connects the item to you.

But since you seem to be well versed in how they were used in prior editions plural, please lay out how they were used and how they support what you're talking about.

[Segev]

I have shared the history. They've existed in 1e, 2e, and 3e as items that were high-powered in no small part because they could be used no matter what other items you already had. They were end-game(ish) items.

The attunement requirement has zero reason to be there except an overzealous application or a coin-flip.

You've provided a history, but it doesn't portray what you're asserting it does. But the history to which I refer is simply what they've always been in D&D: slotless items. Up to 4e, apparently, if your history is accurate.

[Dork_Forge]

I have shared the history. They've existed in 1e, 2e, and 3e as items that were high-powered in no small part because they could be used no matter what other items you already had. They were end-game(ish) items.

The attunement requirement has zero reason to be there except an overzealous application or a coin-flip.

You've provided a history, but it doesn't portray what you're asserting it does. But the history to which I refer is simply what they've always been in D&D: slotless items. Up to 4e, apparently, if your history is accurate.

Slots don't seem to exist prior to 3e, so what you're talking about only applies to 3e. Again, it seems like a minority of the game's history that actually functions like you're talking about, and how much that really matters is really iffy since the two most recent editions didn't do it like you prefer. It's not like 5e bucked a trend, 3e created something that was then immediately dropped.

Again, if this is incorrect then actually provide the rules basis for 1e and 2e that support what you're saying.

[Segev]

Slots don't seem to exist prior to 3e, so what you're talking about only applies to 3e. Again, it seems like a minority of the game's history that actually functions like you're talking about, and how much that really matters is really iffy since the two most recent editions didn't do it like you prefer. It's not like 5e bucked a trend, 3e created something that was then immediately dropped.

Again, if this is incorrect then actually provide the rules basis for 1e and 2e that support what you're saying.

Slots absolutely existed prior to 3e. They weren't as codified, but they were definitely limiting. Rings were explicitly limited to one per hand (as more than one on the same hand shut all of them down). Other items had to be worn naturally/normally, with the maximum flexibility being things like Drizz't's tendency to wear arm bracers on his legs. Even then, he couldn't stack up lots of them on his limbs. No piling on multiple hats, no wearing thirteen cloaks, etc. Ioun Stones have always been the way to avoid worrying about that.

[JNAProductions]

Even if history supports your position, Segev, which it doesn't really seem to...

Why does that matter? THAC0 is in D&D's history, for instance-should we go back to that?
If your argument is "Ioun Stones should never require attunement," I heartily disagree. Mastery is the only effect in the game (that I'm aware of, at least) that raises your Proficiency bonus-that's HUGE.
If your argument is "Some Ioun Stones could do without needing attunement," then sure-make that argument. The +2 stat items probably don't need it (though I do think they should require a short rest or so to actually gain their benefits) but others do.

[Dork_Forge]

Slots absolutely existed prior to 3e. They weren't as codified, but they were definitely limiting. Rings were explicitly limited to one per hand (as more than one on the same hand shut all of them down). Other items had to be worn naturally/normally, with the maximum flexibility being things like Drizz't's tendency to wear arm bracers on his legs. Even then, he couldn't stack up lots of them on his limbs. No piling on multiple hats, no wearing thirteen cloaks, etc. Ioun Stones have always been the way to avoid worrying about that.

So they weren't codified and mostly assumed common sense/not trying to abuse the system, but magic item limits existed back then too, right? A Paladin looks like they're restricted to 10 items regardless of stones.

But whilst Ioun Stones can ignore that restriction of having to wear things appropriately... when is a player realistically going to both be loaded up on items and have access to Ioun stones in any meaningful number to any meaningful effect?

Again, this seems more like a thought exercise or solution in search of a problem. The item situation seems incredibly unlikely to occur and it doesn't resolve issues like wanting to wear two different cloaks or amulets. It only matters in what you want if you both have Ioun Stones and the effects are desirable to you, it doesn't actually resolve this slot issue you're talking about beyond giving you access to items that you seem thoroughly underwhelmed with anyway?

Whatever finds you bliss at your own table man, but this isn't solving any real problems, isn't adhering to some strict lineage of past depictions, and just seems like trying to convince other people removing a restriction is meaningful on what best amounts to a personal preference that won't manifest in the majority of games.

[KorvinStarmast]

Even if history supports your position, Segev, which it doesn't really seem to...

Why does that matter? THAC0 is in D&D's history, for instance-should we go back to that?
If your argument is "Ioun Stones should never require attunement," I heartily disagree. Mastery is the only effect in the game (that I'm aware of, at least) that raises your Proficiency bonus-that's HUGE.
Rod of the Pact Keeper raises your Spell save DC, as do a few high level staves, but proficiency boost is, IIRC, only done by that one stone. And it is legendary. (As well it should be).

If your argument is "Some Ioun Stones could do without needing attunement," then sure-make that argument.
The +2 stat items probably don't need it (though I do think they should require a short rest or so to actually gain their benefits) but others do.
I'll offer the following suggestion:
Three are already legendary: Regeneration, Mastery, and Greater Absorption
Attunement required, power boost.
Four are rare:
Protection, (which is less effective than RoP or Cloak of Protection); attune like the ring or cloak
Sustenance (you don't need to eat/drink); no attune.
Reserve (roughly equivalent to Pearl of Power, but more flexible), attune, like the pearl
Awareness (can't be surprised). Not sure. It's one third of the Alert feat. Let's go with No attune.
All of the rest (7) are very rare. (Attribute buffs and Absorption).
Power level, and it can be moved around the party (flexibility). Attune.

[tKUUNK]

Rod of the Pact Keeper raises your Spell save DC, as do a few high level staves, but proficiency boost is, IIRC, only done by that one stone. And it is legendary. (As well it should be).

I'll offer the following suggestion:
Three are already legendary: Regeneration, Mastery, and Greater Absorption
Attunement required, power boost.
Four are rare:
Protection, (which is less effective than RoP or Cloak of Protection); attune like the ring or cloak
Sustenance (you don't need to eat/drink); no attune.
Reserve (roughly equivalent to Pearl of Power, but more flexible), attune, like the pearl
Awareness (can't be surprised). Not sure. It's one third of the Alert feat. Let's go with No attune.
All of the rest (7) are very rare. (Attribute buffs and Absorption).
Power level, and it can be moved around the party (flexibility). Attune.

decent suggestion to handle it this way.

[Forum Explorer]

The gnolls as roughly demonspawn was in improvement, not a detriment. The last thing D&D needed was another "human in hats" race.

They are very rare.

As to that last bit, Bingo!

The group I have running around (they are 2/3rds of the way through Against the Giants, and are chasing down a crystal dragon as a side quest) ... have 3 of the 5 with 3 attuned items. (Level 12). The two others have two. And they have discovered that they need to make choices.

Which is Good, IMO. I have engineered the magic item finds to have consumables of late. After all of that hording, they are finally choosing to use consumables as "one of a kind neat things" and it tends to pay off. Working well.

I don't like them as demon spawn because it is very universe specific, you know? A lot of worlds don't have demons that are as free to act as they are on Faerun.

And they should be rarer. Put me in the camp that thinks those books should be Legendary. Because someone would pretty much always use them immediately.



I'm really not sure what to take away from this. I think you are just restating my point: gnolls are things they changed wildly from previous editions, perhaps to a detriment (if we can call some people not liking it a detriment). FWIW, I agree that D&D leans too often on gods or greater demons (or epic NPCs), but I'm not sure which way of what position that is meant to support.


Basically I don't think your point is actually disagreeing with my point.

The gods and demons thing is a bit of a sidenote. Someone brought up gnolls and its a problem I have with 5e, so I brought it up.



I think this is a good take-away.

I love the aesthetic of seasoned adventurers having looted many tombs and ruins and having the gear to show for it. Making so many items require attunement and limiting attunement to 3 per person is really restrictive on the types of things you can use.



As a matter of personal opinion, I don't find the "which one of these cool magic items do I want to use and which ones do I leave home" a fun or interesting choice to make.

I'm the opposite. I'm of the opinion that magic items should be rare and fantastic. They aren't by-products of a quest or adventure, they are results of some serious hard work and should feel appropriately legendary in effect. Not counting consumables and temporary buffs.

[KorvinStarmast]

And they should be rarer. Put me in the camp that thinks those books should be Legendary. Given how few campaigns get into late Tier 3, and considering the drop tables in the DMG, Very Rare suffices.

[crabwizard77]

Nonsense. They are called "Ioun Stones;" we can expect them to have a similar niche. You don't expect the Bag of Holding to turn out to be a monster mimic that grabs people and holds them in grapples.

Point aside, this could be a fun homebrew monster/cursed bag of holding. Maybe something like the rug of smothering, but a bag

[Yakk]

5e was built to work well with randomized treasure.

That, and attunement slots, where designed to block the slot-filling paper-doll problem of 3e and 4e D&D, and to ensure that PCs where amazing because of themselves and not because of their gear.

The 5e magic item itemization and rarity is not designed to be robust against magic item shoppe and WBL style cherry picking.

If you spice up the rarity mechanics with the occasional cherry-picked BY THE DM item for a particular PC who is underperforming in combat, you get good results out of it. Like, if you have a rogue and you haven't seen a finesse weapon yet and it is getting tiresome, making the next weapon drop be a finesse weapon is great.

Gold then becomes a plot point, not a secondary form of XP; you use Gold to interact with the world, as a resource. Buy a ship, arm a militia, bribe a duke, found a church. This is a bit alien to computer RPG players (and those trained by them!) Using gold to buy gear is akin to either finding a random treasure parcel, or part of going on a quest to get the gear.

Like, if you have someone selling magic items, use the DMG random treasure parcel system to roll up what they have for sale.

...

If you do the above, making Ioun Stones not require attunement and/or share the same attunement slot isn't a huge problem.

If I introduced them into the campaign, I'd be tempted to make them a plot point. They are the stones of Ioun, maybe each one is unique, and gathering them is a MacGuffin type quest. The one person in the party who attunes to them eventually gets all of them before the final confrontation in some kind of Ioun-based plot. Maybe the PCs are trying to save the god of knowledge, or maybe steal her power? Either way.

Looking over them, being attuned to every single Ioun stone is powerful but not game breaking. And having one person with all of the stones orbiting around their head is a cool look.

The alternative also works, with no attunement on these unique stones; then the entire party has a scattering of stones orbiting their heads, and the end battle is a "with all our powers combined" moment.

...

If I'm not making it central to the plot, making them show up randomly and making them attunement-free is quite interesting. Anyone who finds one will hold onto it (unless it messes with their style).

[Koury]

I'm the opposite. I'm of the opinion that magic items should be rare and fantastic. They aren't by-products of a quest or adventure, they are results of some serious hard work and should feel appropriately legendary in effect. Not counting consumables and temporary buffs.

Not to derail the thread or anything, but how have you found play goes, especially as you near and enter double digit levels, with less than "expected" (just meaning according to DMG) levels of magic items?

I ask out of curiosity, because I tend to be generous with items (roughly following the Xanathar's "Magic Items Awarded by Rarity" tables). I go a little further, even, and tend to either tailor the drops specifically for my players, or let them pick via hiring artisans/magic shoppe. I wonder how combat tends to go with less. My gut says "poorly for the PCs," but that's probably because I just TPK'd my group of level 12s with a completely stock Death Tyrant (plus three minions that barely got any attacks off) and they had +1 weapons and armors (and a shield) plus some relevant stat boosting items.

To be clear, I'm not implying my way (or any way at all) is right or good or bad, I'm just interested in how well low magic goes in actual play at mid levels and beyond.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm the opposite. I'm of the opinion that magic items should be rare and fantastic. They aren't by-products of a quest or adventure, they are results of some serious hard work and should feel appropriately legendary in effect. Not counting consumables and temporary buffs.
I like this type of game as well.

But I don't feel like D&D settings treat magic items that way. If the setting is going to be over the top wondrous with epic magic and magic items all over the place, seems weird that the heroic adventurers would be paupers in this regard.