Should Common Magic Items Require Attunement?

[Gale]

One of the things that bothers me about attunement is that it pushes you to abandon or avoid cheap magic items because the benefits are too minor to sacrifice an attunement slot. Of course, this issue doesn't really exist at lower tiers of play; but as you progress and acquire more gold and thus more magic items it's not uncommon to find yourself running out of attunement slots. For the most part I don't have a huge issue with this, as I understand attunement exists to curb the power creep that can emerge from having too many magic items.

However, I can't help but feel like none of the Common magical items are good enough to warrant requiring attunement. For example, the Ruby of the War Mage can be a great magic item as it solves a common issue many "spellswords" face. But creative players can find ways to avoid needing to buy this. It mostly exists in case your DM is stubborn and won't let you wear your spell focus around your neck and/or tells you can't drop and pick up your weapon on the same turn. Still, even if your DM is lenient you might just think using your weapon as a spell focus sounds really cool. Maybe you're an elven sorcerer who wants to flavor your Scorching Rays as waves of fire slashed forth from your longsword. That roleplay concept costs an attunement slot.

Similarly, the Masquerade Tattoo has tons of creative roleplay opportunities stemming from its ability to grant the player a transformable, full-body tattoo, on top of the fact that it grants the player Disguise Self once per day. But it too requires attunement, despite the fact that mechanically speaking it doesn't provide any major benefit.

The Ersatz Eye is fully functional, artificial eye, designed to replace a lost one. Great item if you want to play a character with a missing eye or two. But again, this roleplay concept costs an attunement slot. Compare to the prosthetic limb, which strangely doesn't require attunement despite serving a very similar purpose.

Personally, I don't really understand why magic items that are mainly meant to be fun roleplay tools require attunement. It seems like the perfect way to ensure players never use them beyond a certain tier of play, if at all. Maybe that was the intention, but I can't really say I like it. It rubs me the wrong way that items with incredibly minor benefits require attunement, but other items with major benefits such as the Gloves of Thievery, Helm of Comprehending Languages, or Sentinel Shield, don't. I understand they are of higher rarity and therefore should be better; and being better might simply translate to not requiring attunement. But it still leaves some common magic items in a weird position of being undesirable despite how cheap they are.

This issue has been bugging me for awhile now and it's making me wonder if maybe we would better off removing attunement requirements from all common items. It seems like some of them only have the requirement because it makes narrative sense that the item needs to be magical bond to the user in order to work; which would be fine if attunement wasn't also used for balancing. I don't think this change would break anything at all, because the effects of these items are generally quite minor. But I'm curious what other people's thoughts on the matter are.

[Jerrykhor]

Magic item design has always made no sense, a +3 Weapon doesnt require attunement, but a +1 weapon with feature does. Same goes for Armours and Shields. Its like the argument that certain spells shouldn't require Concentration, but at least magic items are 100% in the purview of DM which makes it easier to fix.

The same reason why people don't complain about +X magic armors even though they are completely stupid in design. A +1 Leather Armour is basically the same as Studded Leather Armour barring name, but one is magical and the other is not. Just.... don't use it as a DM.

[MoiMagnus]

The Masquerade Tatoo is limited by attunement to not overshadow the warlock's "Mask of Many Face" invocation.

But yes, in general, the intention of attunement is to keep the number of "complex effects" limited (this is why +N items have no attunement, they are judged "simple"), and the number of copy you have of the same item you have, which necessarily mean that low level items are eventually discarded.
[This is quite similar, though less jarring, that's 4e limited number of special attack you could have]

I'd note that some peoples play with "max number of attunement = proficiency bonus", which seems to make those low level attunement more usable.

[JonBeowulf]

I'd note that some peoples play with "max number of attunement = proficiency bonus", which seems to make those low level attunement more usable.

How come nobody told me about this until now? I like this. I'm taking this.

[Contrast]

The Ersatz Eye is fully functional, artificial eye, designed to replace a lost one. Great item if you want to play a character with a missing eye or two. But again, this roleplay concept costs an attunement slot. Compare to the prosthetic limb, which strangely doesn't require attunement despite serving a very similar purpose.

Just to note that the prosthetic limb did, until recently, require attunement. It was recently errata'd to not require attunement which I believe was explicitly to make it less punishing for representation of those with disabilities (here is some context - removal of attunement from the eye appears to be pending).

[Gale]

The Masquerade Tatoo is limited by attunement to not overshadow the warlock's "Mask of Many Face" invocation.

If that is the case, I can't say I agree with the reasoning. The invocation is an at will ability, intended to allow the player to maintain a single disguise for long periods of time, or adopt multiple unique ones over the course of a day. The Masquerade Tattoo can only be used once, and it only lasts an hour, which severely reduces its potential. The item is still great for most characters, as usually Disguise Self doesn't need to be used that extensively. But I'd hardly say the item overshadows the invocation. In any case, it's still pretty usable at lower tiers of plays when players don't have three better items to attune to. At higher tiers of play spellwrought tattoos of Disguise Self are pretty affordable, so players could simply stock up on those instead if they really wanted. Making the tattoo not require attunement wouldn't change much.

Just to note that the prosthetic limb did, until recently, require attunement. It was recently errata'd to not require attunement which I believe was explicitly to make it less punishing for representation of those with disabilities (here is some context - removal of attunement from the eye appears to be pending).

Huh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the heads up. I thought it was really ludicrous that if you made a character without functioning eyes then they might have to sacrifice one or two attunement slots indefinitely.

[Greywander]

I've always been a bit irked by attunement. It feels artificial, and I often pass over otherwise decent items when planning builds because they require attunement and I'd rather attune to something else. There's been a couple of proposed fixes to this.

You could just remove attunement limits altogether, although then your back to the problem attunement was meant to fix in the first place. MoiMagnus already mentioned setting the number of attunement slots equal to your proficiency bonus, though this likely just means you're attuning to more legendary items, not to common or uncommon ones. Another option I've heard is having special extra attunement slots for specific types of items, such as a weapon or armor slot. This can be helpful for martial characters who rely a bit more on gear than casters do. You could apply the same concept to magic item rarity, by having a common slot and an uncommon slot, say.

Another possibility might be that as you level up, items of a certain rarity and below no longer use up attunement slots (you still need to attune to them, but you can attune to as many as you like). This still has an issue with power creep, but as long as it's limited only to the more common items it will limit the magnitude of power creep. Actually, now that I think about it, a class built specifically around using common and uncommon magic items might be really neat. Kind of like an artificer, except they get extra (and possibly eventually infinite) attunement slots for these more common items.

Huh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the heads up. I thought it was really ludicrous that if you made a character without functioning eyes then they might have to sacrifice one or two attunement slots indefinitely.

Typically, such a character would not go adventuring. That said, fiction has a lot of characters with varying levels of disability, and the "blind seer" trope is a popular one. In a way, though, I kind of don't see the point of making a handicapped character only to erase that handicap with a magic item.

[Contrast]

Typically, such a character would not go adventuring. That said, fiction has a lot of characters with varying levels of disability, and the "blind seer" trope is a popular one. In a way, though, I kind of don't see the point of making a handicapped character only to erase that handicap with a magic item.

I mean...what is the 'point' in any character attribute?

I play a solider that lost an arm and had it replaced by a prosthetic that he's still repaying the cost of meaning he's locked in to the employ of the people that installed it. They're currently dealing ith the fallout of the discovery that the people that installed it had a lot of other shady stuff going on in the background.

You could say its irrelevant - I'd argue it's one of the most defining moments of their life *shrugs* Could the same broad story have been achieved without them losing an arm? Yeah, sure but then we'd be telling a different story, that's always the case.

[diplomancer]

Another suggestion; instead of tying attunement slots to proficiency, tie it to magic item rarity; you can attune to only 1 magic item of the same rarity; the one exception to this rule would be those "magic item sets", where you need to attune to 1 to be attuned to the other; if they were of the same rarity, they'd count as only 1 item for the purpose of this rule.

[Greywander]

I mean...what is the 'point' in any character attribute?

I play a solider that lost an arm and had it replaced by a prosthetic that he's still repaying the cost of meaning he's locked in to the employ of the people that installed it. They're currently dealing ith the fallout of the discovery that the people that installed it had a lot of other shady stuff going on in the background.

You could say its irrelevant - I'd argue it's one of the most defining moments of their life *shrugs* Could the same broad story have been achieved without them losing an arm? Yeah, sure but then we'd be telling a different story, that's always the case.

This doesn't even require a magic item, you can just refluff your character to have a mechanical arm. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't really see a character with a fully functional prosthetic as "disabled"; the purpose of the prosthetic is to remove the disability. You can absolutely play a character with a prosthetic, and losing that body part can be a defining moment in their life, it just seems a stretch to call them disabled. Is Edward Elric disabled? Maybe on the rare occasions that his automail is removed or damaged, but most of the time he is fully abled.

I suppose another way to phrase it is to consider, say, a TV show where a character loses a limb, and shows up a couple episodes later with a fully functional prosthetic. What were the consequences to losing the limb? It appears to be a cosmetic change only. How often do these characters actually have to struggle as a result of losing that limb? Usually, they don't. This is kind of in the same vein as shows where characters regularly sustain damage that should have killed them several times over, and yet very rarely does anyone actually die (and also they don't get any permanent injuries aside from cool scars). I think there's a desire among creators of fiction to maintain the status quo, and losing a limb is a pretty radical change to a character. It's just so easy to magically heal or replace the limb so that things go back to the way they were before. Characters with prosthetics simply aren't treated any differently, they essentially just have chrome-painted limbs now. If anything, artificial limbs are depicted as being better than real limbs, usually either being physically stronger and more durable or including various gadgets, tools, or weapons.

Maybe I'm wrong, though. I could also see this as being wish fulfillment for people with disabilities. They want to play someone like themselves, but who has overcome the disability and no longer has to struggle with it. I mean, didn't all of us play a more idealized version of ourselves as our first character?

[Chronic]

Gosh i played a dwarf samurai, what does that tell about me!

To the topic at hand, if you are the gm, do as you wish. For my part I actually like the attunement system, and if some of the items do not deserve attunement, most of the one you cited should require it. The ruby for example has a powerful mechanical effect, and allow you not to pick the warcaster feat, which is an ASI.

[Vogie]

I've been a huge fan of magical tattoos even before Tasha's gave better rules for it, and I ran a "3 item slots / 3 tattoo slots" without much real impact on the games. They were largely cosmetic, money sinks, and/or rewards - Loot that wasn't just "worthless gold" or things that would just fill up encumbrance slots.

I could see you opening that up to a number of "cosmetic item slots" in addition to serious "magic item slots"

[Gale]

Gosh i played a dwarf samurai, what does that tell about me!

To the topic at hand, if you are the gm, do as you wish. For my part I actually like the attunement system, and if some of the items do not deserve attunement, most of the one you cited should require it. The ruby for example has a powerful mechanical effect, and allow you not to pick the warcaster feat, which is an ASI.

The Ruby of the Warmage and Warcaster actually do different things. Warcaster allows you to perform the somatic components of a spell, even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands. This is important because you normally need a hand free to perform the somatic components of a spell, unless the spell also has a material component, in which case you can use the same hand that's holding the material components to perform the somatic components.

Basically, if you're holding onto a sword and shield and have Warcaster, but not a Ruby of the Warmage, then you can cast spells with Verbal and/or Somatic components, but not material components. Which is an upgrade from only being able to cast spells with only Verbal components. If you wanted to cast a spell with material components then you need to put away your sword (Use Object action), then pull out your spell focus (another Use Object action.) Unfortunately, this means you can't stow your weapon, pull out your spell focus, and cast a spell all on the same turn under normal circumstances. (There are some creative ways around this, like wearing your spell focus on your person in order to skip having to draw it, but they will most likely require DM approval.)

Ruby of the Warmage mostly exists to solve this problem. It gives people with Warcaster the ability to cast all their spells, regardless of the components involved, since your weapon now counts as a spell focus. However, if you only had a Ruby of the Warmage and didn't have Warcaster you would not be able to cast every spell in the game according to RAW. (This is assuming both hands are holding weapons and/or a shield.) As stated previously, you can only use the hand in which you hold your spell focus to perform somatic components if that spell also has a material component. This means that without Warcaster you cannot cast spells with only Verbal and Somatic components.

In short, Warcaster lets you casts VS spells. Ruby of the Warmage lets you cast VSM spells. Having both lets you cast both. They don't do the same thing.

However, many tables, including my own, rule that you can use a hand holding onto a spell focus to perform somatic components regardless of if the spell actually contains material components or not; and honestly I think that is a more sensible ruling. Ultimately, how good this item is depends on how your table rules things. But according to RAW, it's a necessity for certain characters, which makes me dislike the fact that it requires attunement. I would rather it be cost more in exchange for it not requiring attunement, than force certain characters to give up an attunement slot just to ensure their class functions smoothly.

One last note, a staff counts as both a spellcasting focus and a quarterstaff, but it doesn't require attunement. It's not the best weapon, but it can be a really nice substitute for a Ruby of the War Mage in some cases. Paladins and Clerics can also emblazon their holy symbol on their shield, allowing them to also skip having to buy a Ruby of the War Mage. So, really the Ruby of the War Mage is a situational item that's only relevant for certain characters, at certain tables where the DM is strict about Use Object actions and shuns creative solutions. But at other tables it can ostensibly make one of the main features of Warcaster seem useless. It's really a "your mileage may vary" kind of situation.

[Greywander]

If you wanted to cast a spell with material components then you need to put away your sword (Use Object action), then pull out your spell focus (another Use Object action.) Unfortunately, this means you can't stow your weapon, pull out your spell focus, and cast a spell all on the same turn under normal circumstances. (There are some creative ways around this, like wearing your spell focus on your person in order to skip having to draw it, but they will most likely require DM approval.)

This has come up a couple of times before, but I don't believe you need to spend any kind of action to draw a spell focus or material component; the only requirement is having a free hand to access it. So you could, in fact, sheathe your sword, then use your free hand to access a wand for spellcasting. Presumably, you draw and sheathe the wand as part of the action used to cast the spell, though it doesn't actually say this, and something like a cleric's amulet only needs to be touched, not ripped off of your neck and held in your hand.

So in other words, you can cast spells with just a free hand and a wand stuffed in your belt; you don't actually need to hold the wand. But, if you look at a lot of magic items that are spell foci, many of them only confer benefits if they are held. The corollary to this is that you can dual-wield spell foci to gain the benefits of both, since the benefits are conferred by merely holding the focus rather than casting a spell through it (though this is perhaps because spells without M components aren't cast through a spell focus).

But wait, it gets even weirder. It's true that you get only one object interaction per turn, but the only limitation on your object interaction is how many objects you can interact with (one); there is no stated limit regarding how many times you can interact with that object. So technically speaking, a fighter with PAM using Action Surge can make nine attacks where they draw their weapon before each attack and sheathe it afterward, interacting with their weapon a total of 18 times on their turn. So for a spellcaster, they could sheathe their weapon, cast a spell, then draw the weapon again.

Now, I would definitely agree that these aren't necessarily how things were intended to be, but it is how the rules are written. For holding spell foci, it makes sense to me that all spell foci are treated equally, so because an amulet or a component pouch doesn't need to be held, neither does a wand. For both drawing and sheathing a weapon using the same object interaction, it is certainly more dubious, but an alternative method that is completely RAW is to simply drop the weapon (which doesn't cost any kind of action), cast your spell, then use your object interaction to pick up your weapon again (I like to call this "juggling", since it's like you toss the item you're holding into the air to temporarily free up a hand, then grab the item again once you're done). So while it's questionable that you can both draw and sheathe a weapon on the same turn, it is at least less absurd than "juggling" the weapon instead.

However, many tables, including my own, rule that you can use a hand holding onto a spell focus to perform somatic components regardless of if the spell actually contains material components or not;
[...]
One last note, a staff counts as both a spellcasting focus and a quarterstaff, [...] Paladins and Clerics can also emblazon their holy symbol on their shield,

I believe this is why a hand holding a spell focus can't be used for VS or S spells; because that spell focus could be a weapon or a shield. Part of the cost of spellcasting is needing that free hand, which means you have to give up either your weapon or your shield. Removing this limitation is expensive, requiring a feat, or specific class/subclass choices. I could see allowing any spell focus that isn't a weapon or shield to be used for S and VS spells, but that's kind of a moot point since those spell foci don't need to be held anyway (unless they're magic items that only benefit you while being held).

[Tanarii]

Probably better to add new slots that can only be used for common item attunement than remove it from all common items or add more generic slots.

Of course, Ruby of the War Mage is absolutely worth a full attunement slot for many characters, 1/3 of your max, even at high levels. That one alone shows why it's probably not a good idea.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Typically, such a character would not go adventuring. That said, fiction has a lot of characters with varying levels of disability, and the "blind seer" trope is a popular one. In a way, though, I kind of don't see the point of making a handicapped character only to erase that handicap with a magic item.

Can't say I'm personally familiar with this particular impulse, but plenty of people with disabilities want to be able to enjoy the power fantasy at the heart of many D&D games as people like themselves. That's why the (in)famous combat wheelchair is a thing, after all. Sure, having an item that reduces the negative effects of that disability does make it less of a disability, but that's part of the power fantasy!

For comparison, look at Dreadnought. It's a novel explicitly written as a power fantasy for young trans women, where the heroine effectively gets a painless physical transition alongside her flying-brick powers. That inarguably removes part of what it means to be trans, and you could argue that the story would be no different if she started as a cis woman. But you'd be wrong. Just as there's more to being trans than surgery and hormone therapy, there's more to being disabled than whatever impairment your disability provides. To pick an obvious shared point, people don't treat disabled or trans people the way they treat "normal" people.

If any disabled/trans people have something to say about either the subject in general or my analogy in specific, please do so! But this is how I understand people wanting to play disabled characters without handicaps.