Legends&Lore: Magic Items and Attunement

[Stray]

This week on Legends & Lore : you can attune 3 magic items (but not all magic items require attunement), so no change there, DM can add niche benefits and drawbacks to an item, and identifying properties of items is slightly easier.

[Person_Man]

I've always had a love/hate relationship with magic items in roleplaying games. In early editions, the game was all about the dungeon crawl and random treasure. But in later editions, it basically became a laborious hassle to manage your Christmas tree of stuff. This seems like a step in the right direction for 5E, though I'll wait for the real final mechanics before making a judgement.

[Seerow]

What is the point of having magic item attunement when the majority of items don't require attunement anyway?

Edit: Posted after an above post stated there was no real change. The article itself says only potions and scrolls don't require attunement. If they stick with that, it's a step in the right direction. The playtest magic items had only a small fraction of permanent items using attunement.

[Stray]

Simple magic items, including potions and scrolls, don't require attunement.

To me, bolded part implies there are other things that don't require attunement , not just scrolls and potions. What are they? How common they are? How common are items with attunement? Article doesn't say. Probably better to leave it up to DM to decide what fits their campaign. Keyword [Attuned] can be easily added to any magic item DM wants to limit a bit.

[obryn]

I've always had a love/hate relationship with magic items in roleplaying games. In early editions, the game was all about the dungeon crawl and random treasure. But in later editions, it basically became a laborious hassle to manage your Christmas tree of stuff. This seems like a step in the right direction for 5E, though I'll wait for the real final mechanics before making a judgement.

Yeah, I'm in exactly this same boat. In RC/1e, magic items are neat perks that you find in a dungeon.

In 3e, it changed into a point-buy track for non-class-based power-ups, where "gold" was the in-game token for those points. And you ignored wealth-by-level at your peril. 4e continued this tradition, but narrowing it and blandifying it substantially. Which powered it down, while leaving it just as mandatory.

It wasn't until late 4e when Inherent Bonuses were introduced, along with actually-interesting Rare items, that I really got excited about magic items in D&D again. I still despise the magic item treadmill and its fiddliness on both the player's and DM's sides, so I'm using Inherent Bonuses with interesting "drops" in all my campaigns now, and I'm never going back.

So far Next is doing ... okay. Certainly better than vanilla 3e or 4e. I really wish they'd just take out all to-hit/defense/AC/save/random d20 bonuses from them, though. (Damage bonuses are fine, but anything that affects the d20 roll should be kept contained.) If your sword can radiate cold, make that the interesting part, not the +3 to-hit.

[Sartharina]

I hope magic item attunement kinda works like Legacy Weapons/gear from 3e, without the drawbacks that crippled the system.

[russdm]

This will only work if the magic item Christmas tree effect has lessened considerably and fighters can gain useful abilities without so many magic items being required.

Also, the items requiring need to be worth getting or you won't have people bothering since only allowing 3 really limits what's available. It doesn't change anything from 3.5's needing to pick and choose your magic items so you don't end up with needing two items that use the same slot.

Unattuned items are likely to be: Potions, scrolls, some weapons, some armor, some staves/rods/wands. Wonderous items may fall into needing attunement.

Its an interesting idea, but it feels weird coming from 3.5 or slightly earlier editions.

I think the Elder Scrolls Skill books should be added in as that be nice since its a nifty system. You could make them one use items like potions.

[Morty]

I agree that attuning magic items isn't a bad idea. It's a step closer to making them feel special, instead of just gadgets. But to fully achieve it, they need to be less obligatory. The article doesn't really talk about that.

[captpike]

I agree that attuning magic items isn't a bad idea. It's a step closer to making them feel special, instead of just gadgets. But to fully achieve it, they need to be less obligatory. The article doesn't really talk about that.

the problem is that 5e needs to support all play styles, not just the "magic is rare" one. if I want to run eberon and have magic marts at every major city and port then it should work.

if they balance the game with only three major magic items then I could break it giving out more then that.

this was why 4e was high magic by default, if the math is transparent then its easy to downgrade the magic items, its not easy to add more and have it work if the system assumes you only ever get three.

[Seerow]

the problem is that 5e needs to support all play styles, not just the "magic is rare" one. if I want to run eberon and have magic marts at every major city and port then it should work.

if they balance the game with only three major magic items then I could break it giving out more then that.

this was why 4e was high magic by default, if the math is transparent then its easy to downgrade the magic items, its not easy to add more and have it work if the system assumes you only ever get three.

Actually I really love Item Attunement for exactly that reason.

If you have magic being super common and magic mart(tm) on every street corner, then the players have a wide variety of gadgets and gizmos, and thus have a lot more strategic power in the form of being able to easily adapt to any situation (much like a Wizard can). But at no point do you get bogged down by having a dozen or more items, or run into issues of characters having so many active items that it completely outshines their inherent class abilities.

On the other end of things, in a lower magic setting, as long as characters get 3 items in a reasonable amount of time (read: by mid levels ish), they're not feeling like they're gimped and missing out on a ton of the power that they should have and are balanced around.




That said, my ideal magic item system is one with attunements that work a lot like Incarnum. Imagine a character who has X magic points that gets distributed into whatever gear they have. So if they only have a single magic sword, they can invest all of their power into that sword and by high levels it is a really legendary weapon. Or if they have a whole bunch of magic items, it's a bunch of minor doodads that add up to the same level, but likely with more variety.

(Okay, my actual ideal is taking that a step further, and having those points actually then get invested into class abilities. So you can have like a Wizard who invests his points into being able to cast spells, or a Monk who invests his points into being able to use ki abilities, and so on. But having something like that just for magic items would be a massive step forward)

[Knaight]

the problem is that 5e needs to support all play styles, not just the "magic is rare" one. if I want to run eberon and have magic marts at every major city and port then it should work.

There's no reason that 3 attuned items prevents outright magi-tech, even if everything that isn't an outright consumable (or something like a magic vehicle) needs to be attuned, particularly if they have the sense to allow you to use magic items as if they weren't magic* even when you've already attuned 3 other ones. The limit is not having 3 magic items total over a characters career, but using 3 at once.

As an example: A group of adventurers wants to explore a dangerous island, which consists of a massive rock jutting a half mile out of the ocean with sheer, steep walls, and a dwelling burrowed within the other side with even more sheer, steep walls on the other side. So, they go and buy magic gloves that stick to the walls and will allow them to climb (magical suction cups), cloaks that slow falls down and allow for landing long distance drops safely (magical parachutes), and whatever other item they want. They attune all three at once, and call it a done day - sure, they don't have as much equipment as they otherwise would, but it's not like a group of modern people trying the same thing would either, particularly as parachutes eat space like nothing else.

Plus, 3 items per character seems way outside of "magic is rare" territory anyways.

*Or even just having less magic.

[da_chicken]

To me, bolded part implies there are other things that don't require attunement , not just scrolls and potions. What are they? How common they are? How common are items with attunement? Article doesn't say. Probably better to leave it up to DM to decide what fits their campaign. Keyword [Attuned] can be easily added to any magic item DM wants to limit a bit.

My assumption would be any single-use magic item (potion, scroll, ammunition) or a +1 weapon, +1 armor, or +1 shield (if the latter exists, which I doubt). I don't see any reason to require attunement for those items, since by their very nature you can't exactly share them. Bag of holding? I think that takes a lot away from the item if it's locked like that.

the problem is that 5e needs to support all play styles, not just the "magic is rare" one. if I want to run eberon and have magic marts at every major city and port then it should work.

Call me crazy, but it seems pretty easy to say "You get 5 attunements in this game because magic is more common" or "You get attunements equal to your proficiency bonus" or "Unlimited attunements! Welcome to FR!" or "Don't worry about attunements; ain't nobody got time for that".

My problem is for the high magic Welcome to Rary's Magical Goods campaigns it would be nice to have gp values. I suppose WotC is aware of how badly they price things, though, so they're just using the category system. Hm. Maybe it's not such a bad thing. It seems harder to make a rarity mistake than a gp value mistake. This way the DM can price things as he wants, for better or worse, I guess.

I hope there are some item creation rules outlined that are less draconic than 2E but also less free than 3.x. Not giving players some kind of option will encourage people to ad hoc 3.x's system, I think.

I really wish they'd just take out all to-hit/defense/AC/save/random d20 bonuses from them, though. (Damage bonuses are fine, but anything that affects the d20 roll should be kept contained.)

If the max bonus you can really get from magic is +3 and no magic stacks ever, then I think it's perfectly fine. A +2, historically, has been the situational modifier on d20 rolls. This is just a little better than that, and in a game where the real situational modifier is advantage/disadvantage, that magic bonus is nice but kind of outclassed.

[Stubbazubba]

(Okay, my actual ideal is taking that a step further, and having those points actually then get invested into class abilities. So you can have like a Wizard who invests his points into being able to cast spells, or a Monk who invests his points into being able to use ki abilities, and so on. But having something like that just for magic items would be a massive step forward)

How is that different from a standard point buy system where? Or are you saying you have magic points specifically that can go into class abilities or items (or possibly other things), all separate from the standard class progression (i.e., non-magic stuff)?

[Person_Man]

I really wish they'd just take out all to-hit/defense/AC/save/random d20 bonuses from them, though. (Damage bonuses are fine, but anything that affects the d20 roll should be kept contained.) If your sword can radiate cold, make that the interesting part, not the +3 to-hit.

Wholeheartedly agreed.

If magic weapons can provide an X bonus to hit, then it basically becomes mandatory for all players to have a +X weapon. And any player who doesn't have a +X weapon is screwing themselves, usually unintentionally. And then spellcasters need a +X implement, or their to-hit rolls don't scale properly. And then monsters need to get a +X bonus somehow, or their to-hit rolls don't scale properly. And then non-magical humanoids and monstrous humanoids have to actually carry magic weapons most of the time or their to-hit rolls aren't threatening. And so on.

The further the developers screw with Bounded Accuracy, the less sense it makes.


Separately, I would propose using Fate points as the economy to manage Feats, Magic Items, and Ability Score bonuses. Every player starts the game with X Fate points per scene/chapter/etc (set by the DM). Fate points can be spent to buy a Feat, buy an Ability Score Enhancements, or attune yourself to a magic item. Unspent Fate points can be used during the game to effect die rolls, or as a "get out of jail free" card when certain bad things happen to a player. At the end of each scene/chapter/story/whatever (set by DM) unspent Fate points are lost, all Fate point purchases are reset, and the player has the option of buying different Feats/Ability Score Enhancements/Mage Items Attunements. If you find a treasure in the middle of a scene/chapter/etc, you can attune yourself to it if you have Fate points available. Otherwise you need to wait until the end of the scene/chapter/etc to do so. As players gain levels, their Fate point refresh rate increases (at a rate set by the DM), giving them access to more stuff.

This creates an highly modular point buy system that runs parallel to the class based system, without requiring it. DMs can set the Fate points at whatever level they want. They can also restrict Fate point purchases to certain things, in case they like Feats but want to ban magic items. And it keeps everything relatively balanced.

[Doug Lampert]

If the max bonus you can really get from magic is +3 and no magic stacks ever, then I think it's perfectly fine. A +2, historically, has been the situational modifier on d20 rolls. This is just a little better than that, and in a game where the real situational modifier is advantage/disadvantage, that magic bonus is nice but kind of outclassed.

+3 from a weapon and my strength of 25 (belt) gives me +2 more than a guy with no items can get. +5 is getting real significant in a game where bonuses to a d20 roll matter at all.

Belts of Giant strength are in their playtest documents, give bonuses higher than you can get without them, the lower bonus ones can be made by a wish spell, and they haven't yet said anything about removing them.

Then we throw in advantage from some other item (ring of invisibility maybe) and I'm really cooking as far as attack bonuses go. Mind, wasting three items on attack out of three atunment is overkill, but the ring and the strength both have other advantages in addition to the attack bonus.

If there are +3 swords there WILL be people with more than +3 from magic.

[Knaight]

So far Next is doing ... okay. Certainly better than vanilla 3e or 4e. I really wish they'd just take out all to-hit/defense/AC/save/random d20 bonuses from them, though. (Damage bonuses are fine, but anything that affects the d20 roll should be kept contained.) If your sword can radiate cold, make that the interesting part, not the +3 to-hit.

I agree entirely. I've generally found the wondrous items which don't do this to be the most interesting - The Decanter of Endless Water is head and shoulders above any item with a +something, and going more towards that would be nice.

[Seerow]

How is that different from a standard point buy system where? Or are you saying you have magic points specifically that can go into class abilities or items (or possibly other things), all separate from the standard class progression (i.e., non-magic stuff)?

The latter. You would have a class based progression where you gain features/abilities as normal. Different classes have different amounts of abilities they can invest their personal magic into. So a Wizard might be able to invest all of his magic into his spell casting ability, while a Fighter-type might have few or even none, making up the difference via magical items (which the Wizard in this example would have to forego, or choose to give up some of his casting access for the magic items he does get) plus his own personal abilities (which might be weaker but don't require the magic investment).

[Sartharina]

Actually, the "+X" weapons and armor are better with the constrained math and lack of a target-number treadmill, having the numeric bonus significant enough to feel like a special ability in itself, without being overpowering.

[captpike]

Call me crazy, but it seems pretty easy to say "You get 5 attunements in this game because magic is more common" or "You get attunements equal to your proficiency bonus" or "Unlimited attunements! Welcome to FR!" or "Don't worry about attunements; ain't nobody got time for that".

if that is all that has to be done sure.

the problems will be if the game is made assuming you have three items, no more no less. so you are too powerful for your level if you have more. there needs to be a option to have 5+ magic items and not require hours of work from the DM to rebalance the game to still work (balancing the game is why I give money to Wotc after all).

[Sartharina]

if that is all that has to be done sure.

the problems will be if the game is made assuming you have three items, no more no less. so you are too powerful for your level if you have more. there needs to be a option to have 5+ magic items and not require hours of work from the DM to rebalance the game to still work (balancing the game is why I give money to Wotc after all).

D&D Next doesn't have the treadmill of power previous editions did, at least not to the same extent.

[captpike]

D&D Next doesn't have the treadmill of power previous editions did, at least not to the same extent.

that is what they say, I don't have much trust that they will (or have the skill to) do that.

if they make the magic items powerful will they HAVE to have a treadmill or they will have players stomping what should be hard encounters because they are ignoring the power that is gained through items.

[Lokiare]

Just a few thoughts on magic items in general: A +3 bonus is equivalent to about 7 levels in the game. So when you pick one of those +3 items up (whether its a +3 to dex saves or a +3 sword or armor) it totally breaks bounded accuracy. A fighter in plate mail +3 with a shield +3 and a ring of protection +3 has an AC of 27. Nigh on untouchable by quite a few creatures. Totally defeats the purpose of bounded accuracy.

Now they throw in attunement with a set 3 item maximum and we end up with low magic only games. It doesn't matter if you have 50 magic items, it takes a day to attune each item IIRC. You are literally limited to 3 significant magic items at any given time. So you can't create a commoner that gains all their powers from magic items (iron man, batman). It neuters yet another play style.

Now if they set that number as a slider and possibly used a point system where you get 6-12 points depending on race and class and different items had different point values and the DM could change it to 0 to 100 or infinity, then they might have a workable system. As it is in this article though, its just another artificial block that won't be very effective, certainly not much more effective than item slots were in 3.x and 4E.

[1337 b4k4]

Now if they set that number as a slider and possibly used a point system where you get 6-12 points depending on race and class and different items had different point values and the DM could change it to 0 to 100 or infinity, then they might have a workable system.

Serious question: how (other than being more, and IMO needlessly complicated) is this any different than just adding a sentence that advises DMs that depending on how heavily they want players to rely on magical items, they can increase or decease the attunement slots?

[captpike]

Serious question: how (other than being more, and IMO needlessly complicated) is this any different than just adding a sentence that advises DMs that depending on how heavily they want players to rely on magical items, they can increase or decease the attunement slots?

because the game might only be balanced to work with 3 items. being 5 AC higher then you should be thanks to having more items could make you all but immune to non-magical attacks

[1337 b4k4]

because the game might only be balanced to work with 3 items. being 5 AC higher then you should be thanks to having more items could make you all but immune to non-magical attacks

Which is not an issue solved by the proposed alternative. Unless I'm reading it wrong, the proposed alternative suggests that players should have varying number of "magic points" between 6 and 12 default, based on class and race. Magic items would then consume X number of points when equipped. The DM could then adjust the number of points players start with (or alternatively, adjust the number of points magic items cost) up or down. None of that changes that the game would be designed around a particular default, whether the default is 6-12 magic points and some unknown combination of items totaling that cost, or 3 magic slots and 3 items filling those slots, either way there's a default and changing that default with cause consequences outside the default design of the game.

[captpike]

Which is not an issue solved by the proposed alternative. Unless I'm reading it wrong, the proposed alternative suggests that players should have varying number of "magic points" between 6 and 12 default, based on class and race. Magic items would then consume X number of points when equipped. The DM could then adjust the number of points players start with (or alternatively, adjust the number of points magic items cost) up or down. None of that changes that the game would be designed around a particular default, whether the default is 6-12 magic points and some unknown combination of items totaling that cost, or 3 magic slots and 3 items filling those slots, either way there's a default and changing that default with cause consequences outside the default design of the game.

if they made it with a default then they failed.
it needs to work equally for ALL kinds of magic, no, low, high whatever.

the basic idea of 5e is that it that if can work for everyone, if they cant make something as simple as magic items work for everyone then how can they expect for the rest of the game to work?

[Stubbazubba]

if they made it with a default then they failed.
it needs to work equally for ALL kinds of magic, no, low, high whatever.

the basic idea of 5e is that it that if can work for everyone, if they cant make something as simple as magic items work for everyone then how can they expect for the rest of the game to work?

I don't think that's possible. You can't magically have the same challenges and monsters work equally well no matter how powerful the PCs are. The only way to do that would be to make magic items totally meaningless, a rounding error in terms of altering your capabilities. And that would defeat the purpose of having them at all. So if you're going to have magic items that make any difference at all, you're going to have to balance the game around having a certain number of them, or at least a certain aggregate potency of them.

The only other closest thing they could do was have the game have multiple power levels to choose from, and then classify each monster and challenge with both a general tier and a rank within that tier (Low, Medium, High Difficulty). If your group chooses to play low power level, then all the ranks are shifted up one (e.g. a 4th Tier Medium Difficulty monster becomes a 4th tier High Difficulty monster, and the 4th tier High difficulty monster becomes a 3rd tier low difficulty monster). Then you could modulate the whole game based on the power level choice, but it still wouldn't work equally well for all power levels, just the presets that they define.

But that's a ton of work for little benefit.

[Envyus]

Just a few thoughts on magic items in general: A +3 bonus is equivalent to about 7 levels in the game. So when you pick one of those +3 items up (whether its a +3 to dex saves or a +3 sword or armor) it totally breaks bounded accuracy. A fighter in plate mail +3 with a shield +3 and a ring of protection +3 has an AC of 27. Nigh on untouchable by quite a few creatures. Totally defeats the purpose of bounded accuracy.

Now they throw in attunement with a set 3 item maximum and we end up with low magic only games. It doesn't matter if you have 50 magic items, it takes a day to attune each item IIRC. You are literally limited to 3 significant magic items at any given time. So you can't create a commoner that gains all their powers from magic items (iron man, batman). It neuters yet another play style.

Now if they set that number as a slider and possibly used a point system where you get 6-12 points depending on race and class and different items had different point values and the DM could change it to 0 to 100 or infinity, then they might have a workable system. As it is in this article though, its just another artificial block that won't be very effective, certainly not much more effective than item slots were in 3.x and 4E.

Dear God you are making this Needlessly complicated. You can only Attune 3 items you can still use others. Also if the DM gave you all three of those items then he is stupid. As the DM decides what is dropped this does not screw anything up unless he wants to.

[captpike]

I don't think that's possible. You can't magically have the same challenges and monsters work equally well no matter how powerful the PCs are. The only way to do that would be to make magic items totally meaningless, a rounding error in terms of altering your capabilities. And that would defeat the purpose of having them at all. So if you're going to have magic items that make any difference at all, you're going to have to balance the game around having a certain number of them, or at least a certain aggregate potency of them.

The only other closest thing they could do was have the game have multiple power levels to choose from, and then classify each monster and challenge with both a general tier and a rank within that tier (Low, Medium, High Difficulty). If your group chooses to play low power level, then all the ranks are shifted up one (e.g. a 4th Tier Medium Difficulty monster becomes a 4th tier High Difficulty monster, and the 4th tier High difficulty monster becomes a 3rd tier low difficulty monster). Then you could modulate the whole game based on the power level choice, but it still wouldn't work equally well for all power levels, just the presets that they define.

But that's a ton of work for little benefit.

you would have to have a set range, there are two ways to make that work, first you could give bonuses to the PCs to balance it out (like 4e's inherit bonuses) or you could adjust fights "in a medium magic game add one level to every fight, in a high magic game add two"

if the game, and therefor the magic items are build on a firm mathematical foundation then this should be possible, the only reason not to do this would be because A) they don't understand the math of their own game or B) they don't want to support any but one very specific playstyle.

[Lokiare]

Which is not an issue solved by the proposed alternative. Unless I'm reading it wrong, the proposed alternative suggests that players should have varying number of "magic points" between 6 and 12 default, based on class and race. Magic items would then consume X number of points when equipped. The DM could then adjust the number of points players start with (or alternatively, adjust the number of points magic items cost) up or down. None of that changes that the game would be designed around a particular default, whether the default is 6-12 magic points and some unknown combination of items totaling that cost, or 3 magic slots and 3 items filling those slots, either way there's a default and changing that default with cause consequences outside the default design of the game.

Actually something with a +3 on it (weapon, armor, shield, protection ring, etc...etc...) that would normally break bounded accuracy when combined with other high bonus items could have a much higher cost. Like say it takes 10 points in a 12 point game. So max your AC could get to Plate Mail +3 (21), Shield (23). Which is still pretty high, but it keeps it in check. It automatically keeps characters from min/maxing with gear. It also makes it where they have to choose between being untouchable in physical combat or being extremely good at hitting. It has a number of advantages over a static system. It also won't be hard to use because the only time you touch it is when you equip magic items, and its barely 2 digit math. You are doing more math with hit points than you are with this system.

Dear God you are making this Needlessly complicated. You can only Attune 3 items you can still use others. Also if the DM gave you all three of those items then he is stupid. As the DM decides what is dropped this does not screw anything up unless he wants to.

You are assuming all DMs know the pitfalls and don't stick religiously to the random magic item charts that are suggested for use with the game. DMs that don't have that kind of experience will default to the charts and only see a problem when their players are untouchable except on critical hits. This means new DMs, mediocre DMs, and DMs that don't focus on the math will all have problems with 5E as it is now.

you would have to have a set range, there are two ways to make that work, first you could give bonuses to the PCs to balance it out (like 4e's inherit bonuses) or you could adjust fights "in a medium magic game add one level to every fight, in a high magic game add two"

if the game, and therefor the magic items are build on a firm mathematical foundation then this should be possible, the only reason not to do this would be because A) they don't understand the math of their own game or B) they don't want to support any but one very specific playstyle.

After all the other things I've seen with 5E, I'm leaning toward A