D&D 5E Dissapointed with Attunement

I'm A Banana · Oct 17, 2012

GreyICE said:
The attunement rules are not "pointless" like you described them. They have a very clear point - to limit the number of math-affecting magic items a player can use.

It's ineffective at that goal. Because that player can already stack however many non-attuned +1 items they want on themselves, and then ALSO 3 of those attuned ones.

Also, what end does that goal serve? Why does there need to be a limit? Balance isn't a valid consideration when talking about magic items, because they aren't.

GreyICE said:
3E and to a lesser extent 4E both had a "magical christmas tree" effect, where players had more magic items than you can shake a stick at run in anywhere close to their default configuration by high levels. 4E tried very hard to stem the effect, but it too failed. And the Magical Christmas Tree is heavily disliked.

By making magic items completely optional, they've already undone this problem. DMs hand out however many magic items they feel like, so if it "feels like" too much, they've only got themselves to blame.

GreyICE said:
. "If the entire party has 1-2 magic items they can be treated as a party 1 level higher, if they all have 3, treat them as a party 2 levels higher." See? I just made a rule of thumb to help DMs with encounter design even though the magic items are not necessarily balanced into system math.

I feel like that misses the point and the fun of magic items. You've just turned it into a treadmill. That +1 sword doesn't matter anymore, since now everything is just tougher.

GreyICE said:
There's no need to torture a DM just because he or she decided that magic items were fun and cool to have in a campaign.

If the DM wants to add magic items to their game, they should, with the knowledge their characters get more powerful.

If the DM is worried about more powerful characters, they should probably not add magic items to the game, because they will add to the players' power.

Done and done.

Blackbrrd · Oct 17, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
..
The default is "don't use magic items." An adjustment would be, "Here's a +1 magic sword for doing something awesome." A bigger adjustment would be "Here's 100 +1 swords."
...

I think that having zero magic items as a default that you suggest here is the worst solution there is because it is completely unalike any earlier editions of DnD.

Having a medium amount of simple magic items (typically +1 items) with a low amount (currently max 3 attuned) of more complex and powerful magic items is a much better default and will hit a much larger audience in my opinion. It makes a good compromise between wanting to give out/receive magic items without achieving the christmas tree effect of especially 4e.

DnD has always had a progression in character power and challenges. Partially the power comes from leveling, and partially from gear. With 3e and especially 4e they went overboard with the scaling. If you didn't have the +(level/4) magic armor/shield/weapon you would be lagging too far behind to hit and get hit way too much.

With just +1 items the difference is pretty small (typically around 5-15% higher chance to hit/avoid being hit). Statistically significant, but not impossible to get around. In other words, hardly required, but very handy. (Unlike a 3e/4e fighter at high levels without any magical gear). In addition you have rare magic items that give you powers you will really miss. The first type of gear (+1 items) are really appreciated, but not essential, while the other types of gear can be game changing. Just like magic items should in DnD.

... I must say that I don't particularily like the belts of giant strength, they interact a bit too directly with a characters chance to hit, a base mechanic. I will have to wait and see how it pans out.

Derren · Oct 17, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
By making magic items completely optional, they've already undone this problem. DMs hand out however many magic items they feel like, so if it "feels like" too much, they've only got themselves to blame.

Be honest, D&D is about killing things and grabbing their loot. When you remove the loot the entire base of the game breaks down. So even when optional, Characters will still be showered with magic items. Thats the nature of D&D.

Viking Bastard · Oct 17, 2012

[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]

I still don't really get the problem you have with this. Would marking the rule as optional from the get go solve this? It just seems that this kind of rule (not necessarily exactly this one; I take it from your comments that you'd frown upon any rules on this) is something a lot of people want.

What if a DM wants to run a game where the PCs can buy whatever magic items they want, but still restrict how many they can use at a time? What's the harm in having an playtested optional rule with pre-made flavour attached for him?

I'm A Banana · Oct 17, 2012

Derren said:
Be honest, D&D is about killing things and grabbing their loot. When you remove the loot the entire base of the game breaks down. So even when optional, Characters will still be showered with magic items. Thats the nature of D&D.

I don't think D&D is about that for many of its players. And if that's all D&D is about, then Diablo does D&D better than D&D ever did. There's more to this game than that (as evidenced by the large quantity of people in 3e and 4e who wanted to strip out magic items entirely or almost so).

Blackbrrd said:
I think that having zero magic items as a default that you suggest here is the worst solution there is because it is completely unalike any earlier editions of DnD.

In a lot of ways, having zero magic items WAS the default for editions before 3e and 4e. It was not a guarantee. If you got a magic item (which was randomly determined), it might be useless or cursed or worse. You often had to wrest them from enemies who used them against you. They were only the result of certain treasure types that you never had to use. And, yes, the magic item might be taken from you at any moment (aah, Disenchanters...). You could ignore magic items and it wouldn't have any cascading effects on your game. The games presumed you'd eventually get some magic items, but in a lot of ways the early games presumed that your characters would eventually become unbalanced.

It was a Big Deal when 3e actually considered magic items in the balance of the game, thus working their existence into the rules. It took us about a decade (and a half) to realize that's not really what we wanted.

We should not cling to this idea that magic items must be "balanced." We should instead discover the fun that accepting a (controlled) imbalance can bring. And the only person who needs to be able to control that tilt is the DM, not the designer. We don't need the rules to babysit us. We just need them to prepare us.

Viking Bastard said:
I still don't really get the problem you have with this.

Mostly it's the idea that magic items must have some sort of arbitrary "limit" to "balance" them that I'm protesting, here.

Attunement is a lovely concept, and I'd be all for it as an optional rule, and with a few tweaks (adopting the experimental rule and changing the requirements from "10 minutes" to something a little more unique) it'd be fine up there as something you could use if you wanted to make items feel special.

It doesn't seem to me to have a valid and essential purpose, though. There's nothing about magic items that means attunement has to happen. So it shouldn't have to happen. It COULD happen, if you wanted it, but it NEEDN'T happen. Playing with Attunement as a requirement is a little like saying you must have...I dunno...Dragonborn...in your game. Yeah, you can always cut it out, but why should it have to be there in the first place?

Derren · Oct 17, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
I don't think D&D is about that for many of its players. And if that's all D&D is about, then Diablo does D&D better than D&D ever did. There's more to this game than that (as evidenced by the large quantity of people in 3e and 4e who wanted to strip out magic items entirely or almost so).

And how many people were ok with the amount of magical items in 3E/4E or wanted even more loot?

Steely_Dan · Oct 17, 2012

Derren said:
Be honest, D&D is about killing things and grabbing their loot. When you remove the loot the entire base of the game breaks down. So even when optional, Characters will still be showered with magic items. Thats the nature of D&D.

Not in any of the campaigns I DM, in any edition, all magic items are special (give or take).

Viking Bastard · Oct 17, 2012

Thanks for the clarification, [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION].

SkidAce · Oct 20, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
We should not cling to this idea that magic items must be "balanced." We should instead discover the fun that accepting a (controlled) imbalance can bring. And the only person who needs to be able to control that tilt is the DM, not the designer. We don't need the rules to babysit us. We just need them to prepare us.

This is significant. I agree.

GreyICE · Oct 21, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
It's ineffective at that goal. Because that player can already stack however many non-attuned +1 items they want on themselves, and then ALSO 3 of those attuned ones.

Also, what end does that goal serve? Why does there need to be a limit? Balance isn't a valid consideration when talking about magic items, because they aren't.

By making magic items completely optional, they've already undone this problem. DMs hand out however many magic items they feel like, so if it "feels like" too much, they've only got themselves to blame.

I feel like that misses the point and the fun of magic items. You've just turned it into a treadmill. That +1 sword doesn't matter anymore, since now everything is just tougher.

If the DM wants to add magic items to their game, they should, with the knowledge their characters get more powerful.

If the DM is worried about more powerful characters, they should probably not add magic items to the game, because they will add to the players' power.

Done and done.

*sigh*

This is what's wrong with EN World. It's covered by this oldest of the old school mentality. You know, there's this thing. DMs quit, and if new ones don't come up to take their place this hobby is DEAD.

You act as if the DM should omnipotently know absolutely everything, yet what happens without attunement if the DM includes magic items at a reasonable pace (aka 1 a level per player or so, which feels pretty slow to him compared to how CRPGs work)?

Well, nothing. Nothing goes wrong. NOW

A year from now when his party has gained 6-10 levels? Well now he has to do a "your gear got stolen" adventure (how well are those received? OH WAIT PEOPLE HATE THEM) or he's boned.

I wish, wish, wish people wouldn't try to make the system BY DEFAULT punish newer DMs, especially with these land mine decisions where the negative consequences won't be felt for months and months of REAL TIME.

You're a high level DM. You probably don't need the rule. Hey man, cut it out. The simplest thing in the world.

The system should be default designed to make sure new DMs make reasonably good decisions if they follow the default system. Attunement is a serious step in that direction, and that's all positive.