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

[Amechra]

If i remember the kinds of conversations that coined "magical Christmas tree" correctly... they actually had very little to do with mechanical balance (though the fact that you had to use magic items to keep up with the system math in 3e and 4e definitely contributed). It was really about the aesthetic. Quite a few people were frustrated with how high level characters ended up looking like tacky magpies who positively dripped with gaudy trinkets and shone like the dang sun for anyone who could see magic.

You don't attune to boring +number items because those are things you pre-calculate on your sheet and then forget about. You attune to cool items because having too many of them at once makes them feel less special. Making players choose between +3 plate and Efreeti Chain is operator error on the part of the DM.

(It feels a little wrong saying "cool" items because D&D's magic items are traditionally weirdly boring. Like, D&D somehow makes flaming swords boring. What are you doing, D&D?)

[Bohandas]

Attunement in and of itself is not that bad as an idea. The point of attunement is essentially twofold - one, to curb the issues of a character having a metric ton of magic items, which can be related to either power or a long list of things to track, and to fix the issue of required magic gear, like the Big 6 of 3.5, by making items few, optional and not necessary to play. Both points are valid and in theory, attunement could solve them.

The problem is that the implementation is far from ideal and the combination with certain other perks of 5e, primarily bounded accuracy, makes it worse. See, magic items are, or at least are supposed to be, fun and cool. They're something to look forward to, to shake things up, to give you new things to do in and possibly out of combat. Yet the ways the rules suggest to hand them out range from bad to terrible and attunement proves to be both a massive downer and an absolute pain in the rear. If you play a magic item-rich game using official items, for example, there's a good chance that sooner rather than later you'll start, more or less regrettably, to pass over stuff and ignore numerous options, because you can only attune three items and a boatload of the (interesting) options are attunement-only. Weapon with unique but situational effect? Would be interesting, I'd love to, except I have a Flame Tongue and it just doesn't make sense to drop it.

Or, you know, look at shields. A generic +3 shield is among the best shields in the game, if not the very best one, because a flat +3 to AC all the time is massive and it requires no attunement, while many magical shields with cool effects don't have an AC bonus and require attunement to boot. The issue is similar with a lot of weapons, because a bog-standard +X weapon is actually very powerful for its "intended" level of rarity, owing to how bounded accuracy works, but is not attunement. And having a magical weapon happens to be a requirement for the majority of martial-oriented characters, so hooray, you have a full-blown failure of attunement's purposes in your hands - there is an item requirement where one shouldn't be and the character potentially has more power than they're supposed to.

Attunement would be better if it was more prevalent when it comes to actually strong magic items or if it was limited to some specific item types, while for the rest you'd be presented with nice, but situational effects that would spice up your sessions without posing an existential threat to planned boss fights.

It's not about attunement as an idea. Magic items in 5e are just a mess if you try to use the systems and options in the way they are presented.

I'm not super familiar with 5e but it sounds like a lot could be improved by atraight up reversing that. Requiring attunement for plusses but not for anything else

[LudicSavant]

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,

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.

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




Ranger and Paladin get a 4th level spell slot.

If you ask me, Thief UMD shouldn't be taking up a full feature slot as is. Why not? Well, one of the reasons is because Arcane Trickster gets most (not all, but most) of the benefits just by virtue of being a spellcaster and thus being able to use all the "must be a spellcaster" items. Another is because the locked items aren't so much better than if you just, well, found different items.

You can give it to them earlier, and also give them something else too, at the same level.

[Psyren]

OneD&D Thief's UMD is changing too. You get an extra attunement slot, a chance to use charged items without expending the charges, and the ability to use spell scrolls with an Arcana check (or automatically if they are 1st-level or lower.)

You lose access to other class-restricted items but as stated, outside of scrolls that list tends to be more situational anyway, e.g. I doubt many thieves will be hankering for a Rod of the Pact Keeper.

[Inquisitor]

This thread brings up a houserule we've been using that's relevant:
'Concentration' is effectively a 4th attunement slot. So, if you have no intention of casting a concentration spell you can attune to 4 items. It tends to help (non-casting) martials late game.

[Pex]

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.

Nods. To put a label on it, even for warriors, legendary weapons and armor could be appropriate for attunement. It is relevant as to what weapons & armor are valid to be called legendary. For example, while I agree +3 plate mail is significantly powerful, subjectively it doesn't scream legendary to me to require attunement. Since in this hypothetical we're redesigning might as well go all in redesigning rarity status. I agree with the point above that's there's no significant difference between a cloak of protection and ring of protection despite their difference in rarity.

It is also important to acknowledge that while warriors could use some love in buffing it's important not to go overboard and give them everything all the POWR! Similar to how nerfing spellcasters a little isn't outrageous, but don't make them The Suck now no one wants to play one.

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.

This can be addressed by no magic item exists without DM approval. Meaning, this is where the DMG should offer helpful advice that even though a +1 shield doesn't need attuning the DM should not be handing them out like candy. Rarity and bounded accuracy still matter. It is a boon to warriors, but the DMG should instruct on the impact the magic item will have on the game anyway. It is a nice gift for the warrior. Here is how it affects the game.

[Psyren]

This thread brings up a houserule we've been using that's relevant:
'Concentration' is effectively a 4th attunement slot. So, if you have no intention of casting a concentration spell you can attune to 4 items. It tends to help (non-casting) martials late game.

I've seen this houserule before and I actually find it interesting. Have you been allowing that concentration to be breakable?

[Dalinar]

As mentioned by others, there are a few problems posed by having a billion magic items. Game balance is one (you can't reasonably catch every outlier before it's printed), cognitive load is another, and aesthetics are a third ("why yes I do have a holy avenger and this weird bone plate I stole from a necromancer why do you ask").

On the other hand, having only three attunement slots is rough from an "I can't use this reward" standpoint.

IMO a good middle ground is upgradable magic items. Fizban's introduced a handful, though the upgrade method was really niche ("steeped in a dragon hoard for X amount of time"), and there are plenty of "rarity varies" items scattered through the books to which a similar system could also be applied. WoW solved this problem with disenchanting--destroy an unwanted magic item, get materials that can be used to improve the stats on another--but that's only one idea. One might have a spell that does it, or a location in your game with unique properties (hidden lake in the forest that can upgrade Feywild-themed items, for example), or you can use crafting rules similar to what's in Xanathar's. Maybe you even have a branching upgrade path for some, who knows. Lots of game design room here.

[ZRN]

Depends on how you define, "better."

Magic is a tool that a regular dude uses to effect. Without using that magic, there is nothing special about a Wizard; still just a person with all the ups/downs/expectations of being a person.
If "making martials better" means making them into something approaching demigods or anime characters, you suddenly have this weird disconnect where some regular dudes become superhuman while other regular dudes stay regular, despite having a toolbox full of powerful magic to wield. Why aren't the Wizards becoming demigods/anime characters on top of being wizards?

The cleanest default is that everyone starts and paths along the same playing field, their only differences being the tools they use. Or, in other words, it's the same reason you don't let one player be a human Mage and then, to make up for it, let another player be a full grown adult Red Dragon.

But, since a grenade is more powerful than a pokey stick (ie: magic vs non-magic), then you have to balance everything by giving magic to everyone. If the class can't cast spells, then they have to get it elsewhere.
If the argument is "pokey sticks should be equal to grenades," I don't know how to have that discussion.

Dude... what?

1. How is the "cleanest default" that one guy is a Regular Dude with a Stick and the other guy is a Regular Dude with a Grenade? If you're giving one guy a stick and another guy a grenade, surely the stick guy should have some other advantages, or how is he the same level as grenade guy?. And it sounds like your solution is to, uh, give the stick guy mini-grenades?

3. Since "grenades" are entirely imaginary it's perfectly valid to say "pokey sticks should be equal to grenades." Heck, that's kind of how the game is actually balanced? Like a level 15 fighter does more single-target damage than a level 15 wizard most of the time.

[Inquisitor]

I've seen this houserule before and I actually find it interesting. Have you been allowing that concentration to be breakable?

I haven't, but you raise a good point; it certainly could be breakable.

[Schwann145]

Dude... what?

1. How is the "cleanest default" that one guy is a Regular Dude with a Stick and the other guy is a Regular Dude with a Grenade? If you're giving one guy a stick and another guy a grenade, surely the stick guy should have some other advantages, or how is he the same level as grenade guy?. And it sounds like your solution is to, uh, give the stick guy mini-grenades?

(2). Since "grenades" are entirely imaginary it's perfectly valid to say "pokey sticks should be equal to grenades." Heck, that's kind of how the game is actually balanced? Like a level 15 fighter does more single-target damage than a level 15 wizard most of the time.

1) Because the expectation is that you are a regular person living in this (usually fantasy-themed) world. You don't have to follow that expectation if you don't want, but it's what the game assumes, and there are games much better tailored to deviating into extreme fantasy alternatives if that's your preference.
Additionally, because it's a team-based roleplaying game first and foremost. Not everything is meant to be balanced against one another. Sticks have their appropriate time and place, and grenades have their appropriate time and place, and the user of each will appreciate the presence of the other.

2) Again, if you want to play that game, go for it. It's not the expectation for 5e D&D, but you do you. If all character options need to be balanced and/or equal, and you're unwilling to step away from D&D, I'd recommend 4th Edition.

[Dork_Forge]

1) Because the expectation is that you are a regular person living in this (usually fantasy-themed) world. You don't have to follow that expectation if you don't want, but it's what the game assumes, and there are games much better tailored to deviating into extreme fantasy alternatives if that's your preference.
Additionally, because it's a team-based roleplaying game first and foremost. Not everything is meant to be balanced against one another. Sticks have their appropriate time and place, and grenades have their appropriate time and place, and the user of each will appreciate the presence of the other.

Err, what part of the game gave you the impression that PCs are regular people?

[Schwann145]

Err, what part of the game gave you the impression that PCs are regular people?

Reading the PHB did. For example, the description of what Ability Scores represent and, further, how you generate them.
Also, an understanding that the default assumed setting (Forgotten Realms) is a setting designed with the idea, "there is *always* a bigger fish than you, regardless of how powerful you become," firmly entrenched in it's writing and lore.

[KorvinStarmast]

Reading the PHB did.

Nope. The Commoner from the MM has 4 HP and average stats. (all 10's, or, all 11's if you add racials to all commoners depending on race). PCs are already (even with that crap sack that is standard array) above average and possessing unique skills.

[Schwann145]

Nope. The Commoner from the MM has 4 HP and average stats. (all 10's, or, all 11's if you add racials to all commoners depending on race). PCs are already (even with that crap sack that is standard array) above average and possessing unique skills.

I'm not sure what your point is? Are your typical adventurers better than your typical nobodies? Yes. That's true in real life too.

[Theodoxus]

Your comments don't follow, Shwann... unless you read Dork_Forge's comment to say "PC's aren't regular people".

He asked 'what part of the game gave you the impression that PCs are regular people.'

You replied, the PHB, and went on to explain why they're nothing like regular people.

Korvin basically said 'wtf', commoners are nothing like PCs

You said exactly!

Someone is definitely confused... and it's either you, or the reader.

[Sigreid]

I think a lot of people's gripes would be fixed by taking a page from BG3. Let everyone use scrolls and make the ones the DM is willing to be available for purchase. Bonus, you now have plenty to do with your money. I'd say that even a low magic campaign could benefit from this and an occasional potion and scroll shop.

[Darth Credence]

I think a lot of people's gripes would be fixed by taking a page from BG3. Let everyone use scrolls and make the ones the DM is willing to be available for purchase. Bonus, you now have plenty to do with your money. I'd say that even a low magic campaign could benefit from this and an occasional potion and scroll shop.

One would think this. One would be wrong when it comes to my group.

I don't think they've ever used a potion. They have hundreds. The only use they have ever gotten out of a scroll is to put it in a spell book. I'm willing to let them create scrolls, and pretty much have unending access to spells. Not sure why they don't, other than I have never sat them all down and said, "Hey, everybody! You do know that you can use a scroll as an action and cast a spell from it, right? Without using a spell slot?" They certainly have the money to make them.

[Theodoxus]

One would think this. One would be wrong when it comes to my group.

I don't think they've ever used a potion. They have hundreds. The only use they have ever gotten out of a scroll is to put it in a spell book. I'm willing to let them create scrolls, and pretty much have unending access to spells. Not sure why they don't, other than I have never sat them all down and said, "Hey, everybody! You do know that you can use a scroll as an action and cast a spell from it, right? Without using a spell slot?" They certainly have the money to make them.

if your players are at all like mine, they're hording - paralyzed by the thought they might need that potion or scroll more in a scenario down the line.

I'm not against the idea of using consumables, but if they're readily available, it begs the question who is creating them. Factory farmed Artificers in Thay? (Or similar in a homebrew world.)

If your game has a ready answer that works, great. Making it universal across the board... less so.

[Schwann145]

Your comments don't follow, Shwann... unless you read Dork_Forge's comment to say "PC's aren't regular people".

He asked 'what part of the game gave you the impression that PCs are regular people.'

You replied, the PHB, and went on to explain why they're nothing like regular people.

Korvin basically said 'wtf', commoners are nothing like PCs

You said exactly!

Someone is definitely confused... and it's either you, or the reader.

On the contrary, actually. "Commoner NPC" is not the be-all, end-all of what constitutes a "regular person."
•The Bandit is just a Commoner that took up a life of crime, yet has better stats and almost triple the HP. They're also "regular people."
•The Gladiator is just a Commoner that fights in the pits/arena/whatever for money/because they're a slave/etc, yet has better stats and over 25x the HP. They're still "regular people."
•The Noble is just a Commoner with a ton of money, yet they have more than double the HP. Still a "regular person."
•The Guard, the Veteran, the Archmage... and yes, the PC too; on and on, all still regular people.

None of them break the expectation for what a "person" is, despite being of varying ability and capability. None are superhuman, none are deities, etc. They all fall when gravity calls. They all have to poop when nature calls.
Regular people.

[JNAProductions]

On the contrary, actually. "Commoner NPC" is not the be-all, end-all of what constitutes a "regular person."
•The Bandit is just a Commoner that took up a life of crime, yet has better stats and almost triple the HP. They're also "regular people."
•The Gladiator is just a Commoner that fights in the pits/arena/whatever for money/because they're a slave/etc, yet has better stats and over 25x the HP. They're still "regular people."
•The Noble is just a Commoner with a ton of money, yet they have more than double the HP. Still a "regular person."
•The Guard, the Veteran, the Archmage... and yes, the PC too; on and on, all still regular people.

None of them break the expectation for what a "person" is, despite being of varying ability and capability. None are superhuman, none are deities, etc. They all fall when gravity calls. They all have to poop when nature calls.
Regular people.

Yes, people who can survive a fall from orbit, then kill a black bear in about six seconds is perfectly normal.
That's the CR 5 Gladiator. Enough HP to survive a fall from any height more than 99.9% of the time, and with a simple spear, enough damage to kill a bear in one action. With an attack to spare, oftentimes.

[Schwann145]

Yes, people who can survive a fall from orbit, then kill a black bear in about six seconds is perfectly normal.
That's the CR 5 Gladiator. Enough HP to survive a fall from any height more than 99.9% of the time, and with a simple spear, enough damage to kill a bear in one action. With an attack to spare, oftentimes.

Quirks of the mechanical side of the game notwithstanding, my assertion stands that the PC is still assumed to be a person, and not something greater.

[Crusher]

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.

In theory, yes, but in practice I'm not so sure. A lot of the items in the DMG suck for various reasons, the single most common issue (besides a total lack of structure in how magic items should be viewed/created/valued, making them a bunch of idiosyncratic one-offs when we should be way, way past that) is that they do something of significant value, but only once/long rest and its only sporadically useful at that. Things like the Circlet of Blasting, which seems like it'd be cool, but is basically an extra 2nd level spell slot per long rest, and if you're above level 4 or 5 isn't super likely to be valuable (unless you give it to the Rogue).

Something BG3 does really well (setting aside caster vs martial balance) is make magic items *interesting*. Sure, sometimes that results in items (or combinations of items) that are wildly OP (in part because you know exactly what's available and where it all is, so you can plan stuff out meticulously). But there are a ton of non-OP *FUN* magic items in BG3. Sure, the ring that blesses everyone you heal for 2 rounds is wildly OP, but the helm that heals the caster for 1d6 every time they heal someone else, or the ring that gives you a +1 AC when you shove someone, definitely aren't OP but are more interesting than 80% of the items you'll find in the DMG.

The biggest issue with using them is that the game isn't there to track all the fiddly effects for you, and its easy for for those random small effects to slip through the cracks, especially if you have like 5 of them all doing different things.

Anyway, my point is that if you gave the characters a bunch of magic items like *that* instead of +1 weapons and armor, it'd be more fun (once everyone got used to tracking everything). But giving everyone Daggers of Venom and Tridents of Fish Command instead might not achieve that result.

[Sigreid]

if your players are at all like mine, they're hording - paralyzed by the thought they might need that potion or scroll more in a scenario down the line.

I'm not against the idea of using consumables, but if they're readily available, it begs the question who is creating them. Factory farmed Artificers in Thay? (Or similar in a homebrew world.)

If your game has a ready answer that works, great. Making it universal across the board... less so.

I am that guy that in computer games dies with roughly 500 health and mana potions in my inventory because "I might need them more later", while fully aware it's dumb. lol

[Blatant Beast]

Yes, people who can survive a fall from orbit, then kill a black bear in about six seconds is perfectly normal..

A Serbian Air Steward, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87), survived a fall of 33,000 feet, after the plane she was on exploded.

Uncapped Falling Damage, is a very, very common house rule, in my personal experience, (across multiple editions). Conflating capped failing damage, more importantly, as being analogous to a fall from orbit, is overlooking all the other great rules a DM has at their disposal to represent something a bit more accurate to reality. :)

A PC with a 20 Constitution score can hold their breath for 6 minutes. Passing through the Atmosphere, takes around 5 to 10 minutes, (I believe). Conceptually, the hardiest PC, if ejected straight into the atmosphere, might be able to hold their breath through re-entry. That is cool.

Now a PC in space, based off the Improvising Damage table from page 249 of the Dungeon Master's Guide, could be taking as much as 18d10 cold damage per round (around 106 average damage), from being in the vacuum of space.

This number was arrived at, by taking the same damage dice recommended for being submerged in lava on that aforementioned page, and converting the damage to Cold damage.

Now, once the PC enters the Atmosphere, it seems reasonable to rule that atmospheric entry burn is similar enough to lava immersion, to convert the per round damage to 18d10 Fire Damage.

The cold vacuum of space, or the intense heat of atmospheric entry, both seem like extreme hazards, so calls to make Exhaustion saving throws seem reasonable: for the sake of the example, the Exhaustion Save DC is 18. I am curious if someone would work out the following calculation:

How Likely is it that a 20 level PC, with 20 Constitution, and thus a +11 bonus to the Exhaustion Saving Throw Roll with a DC of 18, would achieve 6 Saving Throw Roll Failures in a sample of 30 rolls.

This would simulate the PC needing to make 3 minutes of Exhaustion Saving Throws for being either in the vacuum of space or in the atmosphere.

[JNAProductions]

A DM can also say “Your character has a heart attack and dies.”

The point is that a Gladiator can survive a fall of any height without meaningful impact on their combat ability, which is sufficient to kill a bear in six seconds with a simple spear.

Relative to the real world, they’re superhuman.

[Schwann145]

A DM can also say “Your character has a heart attack and dies.”

The point is that a Gladiator can survive a fall of any height without meaningful impact on their combat ability, which is sufficient to kill a bear in six seconds with a simple spear.

Relative to the real world, they’re superhuman.

Or, relative to the real world, the bear is vastly subpar.
And I'd absolutely love to hear the devs' take on orbital falls being *intentional* or not. I'd bet all the tea in China that it's an unintended quirk of mechanics and not RAI.

[Blatant Beast]

A DM can also say “Your character has a heart attack and dies.”.

Which is nothing at all like the scenario I described above. Falling in D&D, is, and has always been odd at the extremes.

Anything with over 80 Hit Points, can technically fall from any height and have no impact to their combat ability. In 5e D&D…many CR 2 creatures are ‘superhuman’ by real world standards.

A Werewolf is a CR 3 creature. The Gladiator at CR 5, is a literal bad ass.

Hit Points, as originally designed in prior versions, only represented a small part of a character’s resilience. Extreme damage, like falling into lava, lethal poison, and so forth had a their own Saving Throw catergories that bypassed Hit Points.

The 5e Exhaustion and Suffocation rules are the sort of the last vestige of Hit Points not being the sole determinant of resilience.

[KorvinStarmast]

On the contrary, actually. "Commoner NPC" is not the be-all, end-all of what constitutes a "regular person."
•The Bandit is just a Commoner that took up a life of crime, yet has better stats and almost triple the HP. They're also "regular people."

Nope.

•The Gladiator is just a Commoner that fights in the pits/arena/whatever for money/because they're a slave/etc, yet has better stats and over 25x the HP. They're still "regular people."

Nope

•The Noble is just a Commoner with a ton of money, yet they have more than double the HP. Still a "regular person."

Nope

•The Guard, the Veteran, the Archmage... and yes, the PC too; on and on, all still regular people.

Nope

They are NPCs with a CR. They are monsters. You are establishing a false premise and attempting to proclaim it as Truth.

Nope.

[Goobahfish]

In theory, yes, but in practice I'm not so sure. A lot of the items in the DMG suck for various reasons, the single most common issue (besides a total lack of structure in how magic items should be viewed/created/valued, making them a bunch of idiosyncratic one-offs when we should be way, way past that) is that they do something of significant value, but only once/long rest and its only sporadically useful at that. Things like the Circlet of Blasting, which seems like it'd be cool, but is basically an extra 2nd level spell slot per long rest, and if you're above level 4 or 5 isn't super likely to be valuable (unless you give it to the Rogue).

Something BG3 does really well (setting aside caster vs martial balance) is make magic items *interesting*. Sure, sometimes that results in items (or combinations of items) that are wildly OP (in part because you know exactly what's available and where it all is, so you can plan stuff out meticulously). But there are a ton of non-OP *FUN* magic items in BG3. Sure, the ring that blesses everyone you heal for 2 rounds is wildly OP, but the helm that heals the caster for 1d6 every time they heal someone else, or the ring that gives you a +1 AC when you shove someone, definitely aren't OP but are more interesting than 80% of the items you'll find in the DMG.

The biggest issue with using them is that the game isn't there to track all the fiddly effects for you, and its easy for for those random small effects to slip through the cracks, especially if you have like 5 of them all doing different things.

Anyway, my point is that if you gave the characters a bunch of magic items like *that* instead of +1 weapons and armor, it'd be more fun (once everyone got used to tracking everything). But giving everyone Daggers of Venom and Tridents of Fish Command instead might not achieve that result.

Yeah, I did find the DMG magic items largely underwhelming. The best items I have found are either the ones that have a cool iconic use (Hat of Vermin is a hilariously not that useful in combat but ok in exploration item, Professor Orb etc.) or have a 'I want to build a character around this' kind of utility. The latter are pretty lacking.