D&D 5E L&L for 5/12

[Iosue]

If I were to tie attunement to any ability score, it'd probably be CON. It fits thematically (you need to be strong in vitality to bear multiple attunements), as well as indirectly benefiting fighters, who will probably benefit the most from multiple magic items.

 

[Kobold Stew]

... as well as indirectly benefiting fighters, who will probably benefit the most from multiple magic items.

It is for precisely this reason that it should be based on Charisma ("force of personality").

 

[Obryn]

It is for precisely this reason that it should be based on Charisma ("force of personality").

Don't you mean "desperately searching for mechanical doodads to hang off your charisma bonus?"

 

[Kobold Stew]

Don't you mean "desperately searching for mechanical doodads to hang off your charisma bonus?"

or help make all stats of some use in a dynamic build, so that system mastery allows choices rather than exploits narrow hyper-optimization (not that there's anything wrong with that, but it should exist as one choice among many).

so yeah, potato, poTAHto.

 

[GSHamster]

I think 3 is about the right number.

In most stories, heroes have about 3-4 items of note. Frodo has Sting, the One Ring, his mithril armor, and the Light of Earendil. Aragon has Anduril, an Elven Scabbard, and Elessar the Elfstone.

Driz'zt has Guenwhyvar, Icingdeath, and Twinkle. Perseus had a Helm of Darkness, Winged Sandals, and a Polished Shield (possible an adamantite sword as well). Lugh has his Spear, his sword Fragarach, and his boat Wave-Sweeper (not sure if one should count his horse and hound).

Three "named" items feels good to me. The only real difference is that all the other magic items a PC would normally be wearing which give minor bonuses become mundane items.

 

[pemerton]

Two out of three examples given show only an RPG related drawback. What's more, the drawbacks define a part of the campaign ("seek out lost clan home") and mingle with the defiition of a PC's character ("fealty to Asmodeus"), respectively.

what happens when the DM says "you feel compelled to head east to the Lost Clan" and the player says "nah, I'm going to resist that temptation and head off south to find that dragon hoard." Does the urge become a compulsion? Are penalties imposed? Does the item de-attune? And what's the timeframe on these effects?

MarkB is correct that we have no answers to the questions that he asks.

But the very fact that it makes sense to ask those questions means that it is too early to say that these are roleplaying-only drawbacks.

For instance, it may be that the item imposes penalties on actions that are not taken in conformity with its desires (like a Geas spell). That's a bit boring, but there are much more interesting possibilities for giving mechanical effect to those sorts of options (eg at the other end of the scale, 1x/game day the player can take advantage on one check made in pursuit of the item's desire).

Detecting magic items just by handling them? Automatically identifying an item with a short rest? These ideas stink on ice and undermine any sense of mystery that attunement was trying to provide.

There are a lot of gamers who would like magic items to be intriguing, so that when you find one, you have to think about how to find out what it really does.

I don't mind mysterious magic items, but the traditional D&D approach of guessing games, or using Identify or visiting a sage, isn't really a great way of achieving this in my experience. It introduces a procedural element into play, rather than putting any sort of mystery at the centre of the play experience. Artefacts, with emergent or "awakening" properties, are more genuinely mysterious in my experience.

I can see that this is quite likely, but on the face of it I don't see the issue.

Players in my games know to train Diplomacy or Intimidate or Insight rather than Nature or Perception or Thievery, because I use a lot of social encounters and comparatively little outdoor trekking or lock-picking in my games. They also know that abilities that let them fight undead or demons will probably be more useful than abilities to fight dragons, because I use lots of undead and demons (and own all the sourcebooks) and not many dragons (and make a point of not buying the Draconomicon).

I don't see the issue with players building PCs to suit the play environment they know their GM prefers.

IMO, if an item is to be iconic and character-defining, it's more of a character feature than a magic item. Excalibur isn't a magic item, it's Arthur taking the "Magic Royal Sword" feat. Dizzt's figurine isn't just some treasure, it's Drizzt's "PokePanther" alternate class feature. Achilles's armor isn't just a piece of equipment, its part of his "Epic War Hero" theme. That is, it's based in the character, not in the item. That's an entirely different kind of game element than "look at this sweet sword I found in this dragon's lair," and it seems odd to put them both in the same bucket.

OK, but D&D has rarely explored that sort of alternative game element with much richness (and eg PF alchemists are often derided for their inability to share potions), and so it's no real surprise that D&Dnext seems not to be taking huge strides in that direction.

 

[I'm A Banana]

OK, but D&D has rarely explored that sort of alternative game element with much richness (and eg PF alchemists are often derided for their inability to share potions), and so it's no real surprise that D&Dnext seems not to be taking huge strides in that direction.

Sure, but even trying to have an "iconic weapon" mechanic like attunement is something that D&D has rarely explored. Magic items in EVERY edition of D&D have been in function disposable trinkets hawked at the nearest +1 Sword Exchange Palace if the dice gods were not generous in bestowing useful items from random treasure hoards. Adding mystery and depth to that is a good step, but there's a lot of ways to do that. Of the many methods that exist to have characters defined by their iconic magic items (including ways that D&D has explored in the past, such as intelligent items, artifacts, Ancestral Daisho, Weapons of Legacy, and 4e Wishlists), attunement seems an odd duck due to the fact that a character's use of it depends largely on the gear the DM feels fit to award them. Which, since it's all bonus gear and random tables are back in a big way, won't necessarily be any more relevant to the party than magic items during 2e, or 1e (or 3e-without-magic-shops).

Magic items as character customization options is something D&D shies away from in general, so if you want to add that layer to it, it would make sense to keep it in the same camp as every other character customization option: something the player can do. 5e's default vision of magic items is not something the player controls, so it's a little rough to say that PC's are expected to form close bonds with the gear via attunement. These things seem to be working a bit at cross-purposes.

 

[pemerton]

Of the many methods that exist to have characters defined by their iconic magic items (including ways that D&D has explored in the past, such as intelligent items, artifacts, Ancestral Daisho, Weapons of Legacy, and 4e Wishlists), attunement seems an odd duck due to the fact that a character's use of it depends largely on the gear the DM feels fit to award them. Which, since it's all bonus gear and random tables are back in a big way, won't necessarily be any more relevant to the party than magic items during 2e, or 1e (or 3e-without-magic-shops).

<snip>

5e's default vision of magic items is not something the player controls, so it's a little rough to say that PC's are expected to form close bonds with the gear via attunement. These things seem to be working a bit at cross-purposes.

I hope you're not surprised that I don't dissent from any of that.

But have a look at the polls on "should magic items be in the DMG or the PHB". It's pretty much one-way traffic on this issue. So Attunement may be the best they can do to open a door to player/character-focus within a framework that begins from an assumption of total GM-control.

 

[Cyberen]

KM, pemerton : I see where you come from, and I think "magical gear as part of the character" is a perfectly valid playstyle and an interesting venue, but as it departs quite a lot from mainstream D&D, would be better addressed by a *module*. This is the reason why I think attunement is a great placeholder : it is an entry point for whatever way of handling magic items that befits your table, and it literally begs tinkering. I don't think the main purpose of this mechanic is the handling of the Xmas Tree Plague (a lower EWL would actually fit the bill better), as much as weaving the items in a narrative, including a background and a purpose. Attunement can be seen as a question to the player/character : do you accept the side quest attached to the item. Not too bad, actually.

 

[an_idol_mind]

Honestly, the whole attunement things strikes me just as the equivalent of more magic items having an Ego score.

Detecting magic items just by handling them? Automatically identifying an item with a short rest? These ideas stink on ice and undermine any sense of mystery that attunement was trying to provide.

I'm pretty sure that's been in the game for a while, actually. I remember the basic box I started with in the 90s saying that you could identify items by trying them on and figure out what potions did by sipping them. The benefit of getting it identified first was that you could tell if the item was cursed or if the potion was poisoned.

I've played with that rule for years, yet my players still usually choose to hold off trying magic items before they've inspected them first. I rarely give out cursed items, but I guess there's always the fear that this time will be one of those instances.