D&D 5E Dissapointed with Attunement

I'm A Banana · Oct 15, 2012

Blackbrrd said:
Well, DnD has had an arbitrary limit in some way. For instance max 2 rings, 1 necklace, and so on. Now they are limiting it to 3 items instead.

About your point about "don't give them", I think that's a worse solution, especially for long campaigns. Some of the fun in DnD is getting magic items and this solution really limits you as a DM in a long campaign. For instance a level 1-12 campaign lasting several years, it will be a bit sad only getting three magic items in that time.

Some of the issue with this logic is that it implies that 3 magic items is fine, but 4...now that's TOO MANY. Or with the experimental rule, that CHAMOD items is fine, but CHAMOD+1 is overkill.

That's silly to me. It's arbitrary and weird. I don't think the game should come down on this point. If I pick up six magic swords and a pair of Magic Mormon Underpants, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to use them all. Since magic items are raw power ups and are entirely optional, the DM should give out only what she expects to be used.

You don't need to limit the magic items to 3 if you're in a long term campaign. You should be able to pick up 6 or 7 and not have it be an issue. You should be able to use all of them and not have it be an issue (except that perhaps you're stronger than a typical person of your level).

PinkRose · Oct 16, 2012

It's all arbitrary.
It's a game that someone made up.
When someone can actually wear magic rings, then they can tell us how many rings is the correct number.
But until then, the game designers have to pick a number. And at this time, the number is 3. If playtesting shows the number is better set at 5, then they might change it. If it's 10, then it will be 10.
A number is needed, in my opinion, for those DMs that don't care, don't know or can't decide how many is a good number. Right now the good number is 3.
For those DM's that know, the rules aren't used anyway.

I'm A Banana · Oct 16, 2012

PinkRose said:
But until then, the game designers have to pick a number.

No, they don't.

They can let DMs pick a number.

That number being, "the number of magic items in my game." Which is also "the number of magic items hypothetically usable at once in my game"

I promise you, the number you come up with at your table will make a lot more sense for your table than whatever number they came up with.

And for those DMs who don't care or can't decide, they don't even have to bother with magic items. It's not like an optional power-up system needs to protect against accidental use. If someone USES it, they already KNOW it's going to add to the party's power.

Blackbrrd · Oct 16, 2012

The number of items you can use at once will very likely be tied to the power of the magic items. With very strong magic items, you will most likely want to have a low number available to the character at one time, while with weaker magic items you can have many, like in 4e where you are more or less expected to have 6-10 magic items from level 4-5 and onwards.

In other words, they will create magic items of a rarity and power that suits the number of magic items they expect the characters to use. Sure you can change the number yourself, but then you should probably change the type and amount of magic items the characters find as well. To me it sounds like a good idea for the rules to give out a number that you then can tweak as you like.

Tony Vargas · Oct 17, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
They can let DMs pick a number.

I promise you, the number you come up with at your table will make a lot more sense for your table than whatever number they came up with.

Since 5e is not 'figuring in' an assumed set of wealth or magic items into character progression, magic items represent power over-and-above level. Encounter & the vital-for-class-balance daily challenge guidelines, though, can't take each item into account. Attunement with a limit gives the designers a ballpark (0-3 attunable items) to work with when balancing monsters to fit encounter guidelines and classes to fit daily guidelines, and when balancing items, themselves, for that matter (since not all require attunement). Magic items are still going to disrupt balance and end up dictating character development like they did in classic D&D (which is kinda the point, afterall), but at least attunement, with it's hard limit, will add some flavor to and put some upper limit on those disruptions.

I'm A Banana · Oct 17, 2012

Tony Vargas said:
Since 5e is not 'figuring in' an assumed set of wealth or magic items into character progression, magic items represent power over-and-above level. Encounter & the vital-for-class-balance daily challenge guidelines, though, can't take each item into account. Attunement with a limit gives the designers a ballpark (0-3 attunable items) to work with when balancing monsters to fit encounter guidelines and classes to fit daily guidelines, and when balancing items, themselves, for that matter (since not all require attunement).

"Magic items are unbalancing, so the designers need a way to balance them."

what is this I don't even

Er...if magic items are inherently imbalancing, they don't need to be accounted for in balance. Because, er...they're inherently unbalancing. And optional. So the designers don't take any magic into account when designing adventures. So everything the DM opts to include in the game is pure sauce anyway. If the DM wants to make it ridiculous, that's up to the DM.

Jeff Carlsen · Oct 17, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
"Magic items are unbalancing, so the designers need a way to balance them."

what is this I don't even

Er...if magic items are inherently imbalancing, they don't need to be accounted for in balance. Because, er...they're inherently unbalancing. And optional. So the designers don't take any magic into account when designing adventures. So everything the DM opts to include in the game is pure sauce anyway. If the DM wants to make it ridiculous, that's up to the DM.

That's doesn't exactly follow. Balance is never absolute, so there's plenty of design space between a mostly balanced system without magic items and a heavily unbalanced system with unlimited magic items. A default limit does allow for some level of predictability. It could be a useful tool.

I don't like it because it doesn't feel like it flows from the story of D&D I'm familiar with. Cool powerful items that allow you to unlock their greater potential through deeds and personal bonding and understand? That fits. It's new, but it still feels like it belongs. Then if you tell me that these magic items will resist each other, and that you can only command so many based upon your charisma modifier, that also flows naturally.

GreyICE · Oct 17, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
"Magic items are unbalancing, so the designers need a way to balance them."

what is this I don't even

Er...if magic items are inherently imbalancing, they don't need to be accounted for in balance. Because, er...they're inherently unbalancing. And optional. So the designers don't take any magic into account when designing adventures. So everything the DM opts to include in the game is pure sauce anyway. If the DM wants to make it ridiculous, that's up to the DM.

This seems like the wrong approach.

PinkRose · Oct 17, 2012

I'm sorry we disagree, Kamikaze Midget.
Enjoy your game.

I'm A Banana · Oct 17, 2012

Jeff Carlsen said:
Balance is never absolute, so there's plenty of design space between a mostly balanced system without magic items and a heavily unbalanced system with unlimited magic items.

That's a fair point, but I'm saying that it should be up to the DM (with plenty of advice in the rulebooks) to figure out when that point is reached for their own table.

Some DMs might never allow more than 1 magic sword to come down from on high. Others will hand them out by the cartful. Both ways need to be fine. Since it's up to the DM to hand them out, it's up to the DM to determine how wildly unbalanced they want their game to be. Some DMs really don't care about balance, or are "cool sword first, ask questions later" kind of DMs, or at least don't care about very tight levels of balance for every attack.

GreyICE said:
This seems like the wrong approach.

To me, the wrong approach is to have the designers plop down arbitrary restrictions trying to balance the inherently unbalanced. It's tilting at windmills. The RIGHT approach is to tell DMs what affect magic items will have, empower them to make the decision that is right for their campaign, and get the heck out of their way. If they want to coat the world in flying carpets, let them. No arbitrary headcount needed.

D&D 5E Dissapointed with Attunement

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich

PinkRose

Explorer

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich

Blackbrrd

First Post

Tony Vargas

Legend

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich

Jeff Carlsen

Adventurer

GreyICE

Banned

PinkRose

Explorer

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich

Similar Threads