Xmas tree magic items was never the problem and attunement hurts the game

[Dr.Samurai]

I generally agree that attunement can be executed well, depending on what magic items do and which ones require attunement. I don't think we got the best execution in 5e.

With regards to Supreme Sneak... I don't see the issue. It's in the PHB, so before the power escalation splats came out. You have to move at slow speed to Stealth anyways, and this gives you the option to move a bit slower to gain Advantage. Seems pretty good if you see a light up ahead or hear chattering, you can start creeping even slower to get closer and see what's up without alerting your enemies.

In combat, on the other hand, if you have the ability to hide, this grants Advantage, which may cancel whatever Disadvantage the DM may impose for trying to hide in the middle of a melee while you're stabbing people.

It's not the best thing ever, but it has its uses.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

I generally agree that attunement can be executed well, depending on what magic items do and which ones require attunement. I don't think we got the best execution in 5e.

With regards to Supreme Sneak... I don't see the issue. It's in the PHB, so before the power escalation splats came out. You have to move at slow speed to Stealth anyways, and this gives you the option to move a bit slower to gain Advantage. Seems pretty good if you see a light up ahead or hear chattering, you can start creeping even slower to get closer and see what's up without alerting your enemies.

In combat, on the other hand, if you have the ability to hide, this grants Advantage, which may cancel whatever Disadvantage the DM may impose for trying to hide in the middle of a melee while you're stabbing people.

It's not the best thing ever, but it has its uses.

The problem with Supreme Sneak is that it gets invalidates by...

* Expertise
* Reliable Talent
* Trickery Cleric 1 (or 2? I forget)

Two are rogue class features that every rogue gets and the third just requires someone else to either be Naruto or multiclass one or two levels into a class that gets some very, very, good domain spells.

Edit: [B]Note[/B]: Trickery is in the PHB, so it's not like a splat book power creep. Also note, Trickery Cleric is not a stealth class so much as a misdirection class so it pairs up with the Rogue so damn well.

Supreme Sneak is a low level feature that is placed at level 9. This is indictive of a larger issue of balance.

But yeah, attunement could be done correctly but I'm not sure that was ever a design goal of WotC, at least, not one worth spending their way too limited time on.

[Dr.Samurai]

Expertise and Reliable Talent work in tandem with Advantage, not against it.

Trickery Cleric is not relevant unless there is a trickery cleric in your party. And they should probably be using that ability on someone wearing heavy armor.

I agree something like Supreme Sneak should be lower level, but this was the original printing of the edition, where a bonus action attack imposes Exhaustion, and Paladin features required an Action to activate.

But at-will Advantage on Stealth is not bad.

[JonBeowulf]

In AD&D and previous eras, finding magic items was a significant part of the reason one went adventuring. (IIRC, staves and wands had finite charges and could not be recharged, but my memory of how that works in AD&D 2e is gone).

It was also a whole lot easier for PCs to die in the early editions, so magic items were pretty much a necessity. I'm fairly certain that very few things in 2e were rechargeable. Ring of Spell Storing (duh) and Ring of Shooting Stars come to mind, but nothing for wands, staves, and rods.

Suggested Attunement rule tweak: martial characters can attune as many items as their proficiency bonus. (Rogue, fighter, monk, Barbarian, Ranger Paladin).

Casters can attune up to three.

Ninja'd by Korvin yet again!

[Segev]

I stand corrected on stacking the same item. Still, 5e is very concerned about allowing number inflationanything lot of items doing it requiring attunement. (They are less hinky about it on attack because the paradigm they are going for involves hp being the main defense at high level; more interesting to hit and damage than to miss, goes the theory.)

No idea why +1 shields don't require attunement.

If there were no attunement, though, practically every character would have a 19 constitution from a magic item if they didn't have a 20 from actual stats. And many would settle for it and dump Con to bolster another one instead.

Not to mention many having gauntlets of ogre power and headbands of intellect, too, while they were at it. They become "why not?" items when they can just be worn. Sure, there's cost, but 5e has a lot less to spend gold on.

And, for 'all share one attunement slot,' I would go with tattoos, not Ioun Stones. Ioun Stones are rare enough and have enough caveats for loss that they really don't need attunement on top of it all.

[Psyren]

The OneD&D version of Supreme Sneak is much better imo - you can give up 1d6 of your sneak attack to become essentially an untouchable sniper as you remain hidden even after attacking as long as you begin and end your turn in 3/4 cover or more. Getting advantage on stealth without a speed penalty is pretty easy (any rogue will be able to grab a familiar scouting buddy and get the Help action for instance) so I'd rather have a feature like this.

[Hal]

In my game, all non-book items have an optional attunement. That is, an item will be generally usable if you don't attune to it (a +1 sword is still a +1 sword, after all). But you get access to more features of the item if you do attune, such as being able to cast spells from the item or access to powers the item grants.

I've also included more magic items that work kind of like WoW Shaman Totems; activate and place to get an effect, but vulnerable to attack and thus could be removed from the field. I keep thinking my players forgot about these items at all, but they keep showing up to very great effect.

[Pex]

Suggested Attunement rule tweak: martial characters can attune as many items as their proficiency bonus. (Rogue, fighter, monk, Barbarian, Ranger Paladin).

Casters can attune up to three.

This would IMO bring back some of the high level Fighting Men over time have accumulated a bunch of magical items and through that key aspect of adventuring, close the perceived balance problem in Tiers 3 and 4.

I disapprove of discrimination against a class for the audacity of existing even if the intent is benign. The better solution is don't have magic weapons, armor, and shields require attunement. They're necessities of warriors, so don't 'discriminate' against them either with attunement. No magic item exists without DM's permission so he control how many PCs have. Warriors are only wearing and using one armor and shield anyway. As for weapons, 5E warriors don't need swiss army knives of weapons. Let two-weapon users enjoy their rare perk. The wizard is not charging into battle wielding a greatsword fiendbane & giantbane wearing adamantine full plate and an animated shield. My old paladin, yes, but not the wizard.

[Dork_Forge]

One, ideally, is not looking at BG3 in isolation, one is directly comparing the two experiences. Ludic Savant boiled down the difference in one moderately lengthy post in the BG3 Martial thread that was floating around the board.

Comparing them in a meaningful way was my point. The OP seemed to basically be saying 'BG3 doesn't have attunement and everyone loves BG3!' BG3 being so drastically different to 5e makes it an entirely different comparison, nevermind that it's a videogame vs a TTRPG, which was my point.

Is Efreeti Chainmail ‘better’ than Plate Mail +3?

It provides immunity to a common damage type for 2 less AC, whilst resistance is easy to get, immunity is not even in this late stage of splat creep. However, something folks often miss is:

Rarity does not equal power. They are correlated, but rarity was never meant to indicate power alone. Like how in real life, some rare things are expensive because of their rarity, whilst others are just obscure trash.

A Ring of Protection is higher rarity than a Cloak of Protection, but they do exactly the same thing. You can infer one is harder to make than the other, or that cloaks are more in demand because they more readily show you have a protective item. But the main thing is this clearly illustrates that rarity and mechanical power are not 1:1.

This might also be a hot take: not all items have to be great or unequivocally good in general. It's okay for stuff to just be conceptually cool, fit a PC RP better, or just be sale fodder. Heck, the reality is that having an item is just better than not having it regardless of it it could be better (of course excepting cursed items).

[Mindflayer_Inc]

Expertise and Reliable Talent work in tandem with Advantage, not against it.

Trickery Cleric is not relevant unless there is a trickery cleric in your party. And they should probably be using that ability on someone wearing heavy armor.

I agree something like Supreme Sneak should be lower level, but this was the original printing of the edition, where a bonus action attack imposes Exhaustion, and Paladin features required an Action to activate.

But at-will Advantage on Stealth is not bad.

That's like saying the Fighter is fine because it's meant to work in tandem with the Wizard.

Working with something doesn't stop that thing itself from having issues.

I don't know what printing you're talking about but my PHB doesn't have that other stuff you're talking about. (Edit: Neither does the SRD)

Also, again, Trickery Cleric gets at-will stealth gift at level 1 (or 2). Which is, like, 7 to 8 levels earlier.

I guess there's no problem if you're going to handwave wotc's decisions?

Ok.

[KorvinStarmast]

Supreme Sneak is a low level feature that is placed at level 9. This is indictive of a larger issue of balance.

Made a better point than I did. +1.

It was also a whole lot easier for PCs to die in the early editions,

Yes. 2e had the "if you take 50 HP or more from 1 hit / attack/dragon's breath/ you are dead" rule.

No idea why +1 shields don't require attunement.

Because it is pointlessly punitive to martial characters. That's why.

And, for 'all share one attunement slot,' I would go with tattoos, not Ioun Stones. Ioun Stones are rare enough and have enough caveats for loss that they really don't need attunement on top of it all.

Not with you on that one. The tattoos in Tasha's that have attunement requirements certainly each need an attunement slot. I had one on my lore bard (Shadowfell brand tattoo) that was far more valuable than any of the magic items I had besides the Cubic Gate (legendary).

The OneD&D version of Supreme Sneak is much better imo - you can give up 1d6 of your sneak attack to become essentially an untouchable sniper as you remain hidden even after attacking as long as you begin and end your turn in 3/4 cover or more. Getting advantage on stealth without a speed penalty is pretty easy (any rogue will be able to grab a familiar scouting buddy and get the Help action for instance) so I'd rather have a feature like this.

I don't disagree that it's neat feature, it is, but it's also a bit fiddly.

The better solution is don't have magic weapons, armor, and shields require attunement.

You'll not get disagreement from me on that one. (Though maybe sentient weapons ought to require attunement? Seems thematically appropriate). Artifacts and legendaries might also be a good case for attunement.

[Psyren]

I don't know what printing you're talking about but my PHB doesn't have that other stuff you're talking about. (Edit: Neither does the SRD)

I think what he meant was that "advantage on a skill check if you sacrifice half your movement" was considered bonkers powerful enough in 2014 to be worth a 9th-level subclass feature. Compare that to a Soulknife who can simply teleport 4x the distance or more at that level without any components, likely foregoing the need to even make a check in the first place.

Comparing them in a meaningful way was my point. The OP seemed to basically be saying 'BG3 doesn't have attunement and everyone loves BG3!' BG3 being so drastically different to 5e makes it an entirely different comparison, nevermind that it's a videogame vs a TTRPG, which was my point.

This is a much more succinct version of my stance as well.

[Segev]

Because it is pointlessly punitive to martial characters. That's why.

I'm not sure that argument can't be made for just about any attunement item. "It's pointlessly punitive to X characters." A +1 shield goes a long way towards breaking bounded accuracy, which is a concern in a lot of the design of the game.

That said, I'm not complaining that they don't require attunement. It's just a point of interest.

[Dr.Samurai]

That's like saying the Fighter is fine because it's meant to work in tandem with the Wizard.

Working with something doesn't stop that thing itself from having issues.

You said it invalidates Expertise and Reliable Talent, which doesn't make sense. I corrected you by saying it works in tandem with them, which it does. Expertise gives you the higher bonus, Reliable Talent gives you a minimum roll, and Advantage gives you twice the chances of rolling high, or cancels out Disadvantage if you have it for any reason.

I don't know what printing you're talking about but my PHB doesn't have that other stuff you're talking about. (Edit: Neither does the SRD)

The berserker gets a bonus action attack at the cost of Exhaustion, whereas now virtually everything can weaponize their bonus action without the onerous penalty. The paladin thing is actually more a mixed bag so not as useful to my point as I thought.

Also, again, Trickery Cleric gets at-will stealth gift at level 1 (or 2). Which is, like, 7 to 8 levels earlier.

Yes, there's a long tradition of giving casters lots of goodies that other classes deserve more. If you're coming to that protest with a cardboard sign, get in line because you're behind me.

You said the feature is a scam. I don't know what that means but the existence of better features doesn't make another feature a "scam". You are putting forth what you perceive to be an idealized scenario, where a level 12 multiclassed rogue can Stealth better than a single classed level 9 rogue, or a level 11 rogue with a cleric ally can stealth better than a lone level 9 rogue. I mean... you're not wrong that these other higher level rogues that multiclass or make use of a specific type of cleric party member can do it better than the lower level rogue without those other things.

I guess there's no problem if you're going to handwave wotc's decisions?

There is a problem. I agreed with you that it's a low level feature that comes online too late. I explained that the early edition of the game was much more conservative, just as an explanation, not even as a point of disagreement.

I just disagree with the normie online vitriol of "this is garbage, casters do it better". "Oh, if you have this specific party member, or multiclass into this specific thing, and also if you're level 11 and have this feature, then obviously this other thing sucks". Yeah, sure. Not very compelling to me but I know this type of talk has swayed countless others.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not sure that argument can't be made for just about any attunement item. "It's pointlessly punitive to X characters." A +1 shield goes a long way towards breaking bounded accuracy, which is a concern in a lot of the design of the game.

Hardly. How much Tier 3 play have you experienced as a martial character?

Higher CR critters have substantial to hit bonuses.
You can, for example, have armor class of 21 (Full plate, shield +1) and the thrown boulders of giants, or the 6d6 damage of the Fire Giant's great sword hit with some frequency. Trust me, I have been there and done that.

That said, I'm not complaining that they don't require attunement. It's just a point of interest.

Got it.

[Dr.Samurai]

I agree with Korvin. Monsters just land hits like crazy. Though I've seen some argue the point that this is intended.

In fact, despite that being the case, my DM just confided in me that he feels these levels (we're level 14) are a bit unwieldy and he is struggling to challenge us and may wrap the game up soon.

[Segev]

Hardly. How much Tier 3 play have you experienced as a martial character?

Higher CR critters have substantial to hit bonuses.
You can, for example, have armor class of 21 (Full plate, shield +1) and the thrown boulders of giants, or the 6d6 damage of the Fire Giant's great sword hit with some frequency. Trust me, I have been there and done that.
Got it.

Oh, certainly. At high-tier play, having an AC that can get you more than a 25% being-missed rate seems to be nigh impossible by design. Again, by that point, your mountain of hp is your defense against attacks, not your AC.

By tier 3, you'd probably need a +2 or +3 shield to really risk breaking that curve, but by the same token, the curve's purpose is to keep the low-end stuff relevant at high level. That is, it doesn't matter that your 25 AC is hit on a 9+ by the high-end monsters; it's breaking bounded accuracy because the goblins now basically can't hit you. But goblins were always supposed to have a better-than-5% chance of hitting almost everybody in 5e; again, it's their low damage numbers that make them a non-issue (except in large numbers).

All of it is more art than science, but I do stand by the assertion that a +1 shield is one of several starting points for breaking bounded accuracy's assumptions. Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does go into my question about the choice whether or not to require attunement. And why that doesn't, but a Ring of Protection does, for instance.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think the fact that the items exist in the first place indicates that this will always be an issue, Bounded Accuracy or not.

It would be simple enough to not include stat boosting items, and typing in giant font "DON'T INCLUDE THESE ITEMS IN YOUR GAME".

Instead, these items are printed, they don't require attunement, and they're included in random treasure charts. Seems counter-productive.

With regards to goblins... does Bounded Accuracy work in this regard equally between goblins and high level fighters/barbarians, and goblins and high level casters?

[Segev]

With regards to goblins... does Bounded Accuracy work in this regard equally between goblins and high level fighters/barbarians, and goblins and high level casters?

If anything, high-level casters are more vulnerable to them, due to lower hp pools and less likelyhood of breaking bounded accuracy. In terms of "you just can't get to them" defenses, mages and non-mages have roughly the same options wrt goblins.

Part of bounded accuracy, too, is the DC of spells and the like; casters having theirs held low is part of why sometimes even a goblin will make a saving through vs. dominate person.

[Amnestic]

casters having theirs held low is part of why sometimes even a goblin will make a saving through vs. dominate person.

Though with the +save DC items (which existed in core through Rod of the Pact Keeper, but got expanded in Tasha's) it is now reasonably possible for tier 3-4 characters to have 'unsaveable' spells for some enemies.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yeah it seems to me that a high level fighter will have more trouble with a horde of goblins thanks to Bounded Accuracy than a high level wizard lobbing normal fireballs, which kill the goblins even if the wizard rolls below average damage and the goblins make their saving throws.

Where is the bounded accuracy?

[Segev]

Yeah it seems to me that a high level fighter will have more trouble with a horde of goblins thanks to Bounded Accuracy than a high level wizard lobbing normal fireballs, which kill the goblins even if the wizard rolls below average damage and the goblins make their saving throws.

Where is the bounded accuracy?

Fair question, but the same fighter will generally have an easier time with the high-end single monster than the same wizard will, because wizards have always been better with hordes than with single threats.

Neither is helpless against either threat, but the wizard will have to work at it with the single monster. Especially if it hits him in the immunity zone (e.g. too stupid to fall for Tasha's hideous laughter if that's a go-to, or immune to Charm, or the like).

[JackPhoenix]

Is Efreeti Chainmail ‘better’ than Plate Mail +3?

While not everyone uses them, I'd like to point out that by the DMG random treasure tables, plate armor +3 together with half plate +3 share the privilege of being THE rarest magic items in the game (obviously ignoring artifacts, as those won't show up randomly), with Efreeti Chainmail being 12 times as likely to show up as a random treasure (and that's still just 1% chance in the highest treasure table).

[elyktsorb]

Not sure how good that level 9 feature is, as I've not played a level 10+ rogue/thief. Depends on the game, I guess.

Just here to echo that Supreme Sneak does in fact suck. 2 levels later Reliable Talent makes it very worthless, and the chances of you not having some way of getting advantage on stealth checks by level 9 is very very small.

Getting access to Pass Without Trace on a Rogue is far more a goal to me than getting Supreme Sneak.

[LudicSavant]

With regards to Supreme Sneak... I don't see the issue. It's in the PHB, so before the power escalation splats came out.

*snip*

It's not the best thing ever, but it has its uses.

It's better than nothing, but it is worse than many other abilities in the same niche, including in the PHB.

Those who are best at stealth are generally good at evading auto-detection circumstances (hiding while observed, foiling divinations, foiling special senses, etc), or at bringing their party with them on stealth escapades (Pass Without Trace being one of the biggest examples of this), in addition to having rock solid Stealth bonuses (like Advantage/etc).

In combat, on the other hand, if you have the ability to hide, this grants Advantage, which may cancel whatever Disadvantage the DM may impose for trying to hide in the middle of a melee while you're stabbing people.

Trying to hide while observed just results in an automatic failure, unless you have one of the features that specifically lets you do so. Supreme Sneak is not one of those abilities.

[Goobahfish]

So, I generally agree.

There are two 'kinds' of magic items. There are buffing items, and there are flexibility items. The iconic '+1 mace' which is mainstay of D&D... is pretty bad design. It is easy to understand (+1 to two rolls... like having +2 Strength), but all it does is fiddle with the balance of the game. Now, certain challenges are easier or harder whether you do or don't have this +1 bonus. The bonus depends on your DM handing out said item of the correct type. Having a +1 weapon also locks characters in to certain weapon types (for optimisation), inevitably narrowing play.

A much more 'interesting' item is a sword that can 'burst into flames 1/day for 1 minute'. Instead of just shifting the power curve, now there is some strategic depth. Fire might be more useful in some contexts than others. Do I use it now or save it for later?

Of course, this benefits the 'thinker' player rather than the 'human fighter what do I roll again' player.

Attunement pressures against the flexible items (items which have interesting powers that have limited uses) in favour of the reliable 'always useful' item. It also biases towards 'biggest brightest item'. For example, if different items had different attunement costs, you could choose to have two smaller items or one bigger item. Instead we have the simplistic 3 and no more system.

So yeah, I think Schwann is right. I think getting rid of the 'static bonus items' (like they coincidentally seemed to have done with feats) would solve 95% of the problem of magic items allowing for far more utility items that aren't scrolls and potions.

[Ozreth]

Being decked out in magic items was never problematic.
The problem was that 3.X design purposely included "system mastery" as a design point, so specific magic items always won out in importance.
Wearing two rings, bracers, a cloak, armor, a headband, a belt, gloves, etc and so on, by itself, is fine. The fact that you were "doing it wrong" if that cloak wasn't a Cloak of Resistance, that ring wasn't a Ring of Protection, that headband wasn't a "Headband of *Stat*," that amulet wasn't "Amulet of Nat Armor," etc etc was the real problem.

Interesting magic items always had to take a back seat to stat boosts in order to keep up with the silliness of the math as the game progressed. Magic items didn't feel like fun rewards, but like requirements.

I would also say that this feels true of 3.5 due to the edition having been prevalent and popular for so long that it had time to be dissected like no other system has. Over time conversations like this became the focus of the game. Yeah there is some system mastery built into the game, but I would say a quote from Monte Cook about this design philosophy was taken and largely exaggerated over the years. The game works just fine when you choose interesting magic items and don't follow the "must-have" lists. These arguments really only play out in reality when you're playing with min-maxers who know what they are doing. The sheer amount of items and options in 3.5 were bound to result in some being better than the others. Combine that with so many people playing, discussing and abusing this edition, you're bound to end up with obvious "better" choices, if numbers are your group and DM's focus.

But, I also don't relate to the increasing focus on balance in a game that is inherently un-balanced by the nature of being a role playing game. Its a wash in the end, and the games that are uber focused on balance end up feeling stale and samey to me (4e and PF2e come to mind).

[Dr.Samurai]

It's better than nothing, but it is worse than many other abilities in the same niche, including in the PHB.

Yes but at some point this is irrelevant. Whether there are better ways to do something doesn't mean this way doesn't do anything.

Those who are best at stealth are generally good at evading auto-detection circumstances (hiding while observed, foiling divinations, foiling special senses, etc), or at bringing their party with them on stealth escapades (Pass Without Trace being one of the biggest examples of this), in addition to having rock solid Stealth bonuses (like Advantage/etc).

I am, of course, not suggesting that Supreme Sneak makes you the "best" at Stealth, so I don't have to defend this idea. I'll note though that you consider Advantage a "rock solid Stealth bonus", and Supreme Sneak does provide that.

Trying to hide while observed just results in an automatic failure, unless you have one of the features that specifically lets you do so.

Yes, hence the qualifier in that very same post you quoted "In combat... assuming you have the ability to hide...". Invisible characters, heavy obscurement from a fog or Darkness, the wild elf feature in the right terrain, Skulker and dim lighting, etc. all of these could allow you to hide while in combat.

Supreme Sneak is not one of those abilities.

And I never said it was.

[KorvinStarmast]

Dear colleagues:

If, as I had suggested, the UMD arrived at level 9 what should be fit into the Thief archetype of rogue such that it is a good level 13 ability.
(Fighter gets a second Indomitable, for example,

Indomitable
you can reroll a saving throw that you fail. If you do so, you must use the new roll, and you can’t use this feature again until you finish a long rest.

Monk gets Tongue of the Sun and Moon)...keeping in mind that this thread isn't really about the Thief/Rogue, but about magical items.

Tongue of the Sun and Moon
Starting at 13th level, you learn to touch the ki of other minds so that you understand all spoken languages. Moreover, any creature that can understand a language can understand what you say.

Barbarian Gets Brutal Critical.

What 13th level ability would be good for a Thief/Rogue such that is removed the need for some magic or magical item?
(Tongue of the sun and moon is more or less an At Will Tongues spell at third level)
Tongues

3rd-level divination | Casting Time: 1 action | Range: Touch | Components: V, M (a small clay model of a ziggurat)
Duration: 1 hour
This spell grants the creature you touch the ability to understand any spoken language it hears. Moreover, when the target speaks, any creature that knows at least one language and can hear the target understands what it says.

Ranger and Paladin get a 4th level spell slot.

[Dork_Forge]

Dear colleagues:
If, as I had suggested, the UMD arrived at level 9

YEAH, bring back UMD, they were so cute. Wait we aren't talking about the PSP. >.>

...what should be fit into the Thief archetype of rogue such that it is a good level 13 ability. (Fighter gets a second Indomitable, for example, Monk gets Tongue of the Sun and Moon)...keeping in mind that this thread isn't really about the Thief/Rogue, but about magical items.

What 13th level ability would be good for a Thief/Rogue such that is removed the need for some magic or magical item?
(Tongue of the sun and moon is more or less an At Will Tongues spell at third level)

Honestly I'd want to see more support for the Batmanesque playstyle the Thief so much embodies at heart with Second Story Work and Fast Hands. An ability that raises the DC of items like ball bearings and caltrops, whilst officially codifying new options like the pocket sand, tangle foot bag, bolo etc.