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

[DMZ2112]

Presumably it's for groups that choose to not use attunement at all. Remove attunement, use Identify, and you're back to earlier-edition methodology which some groups prefer.

Are you, though? I feel like this isn't one of those optional 'improvements' a DM can just hand wave. Won't a limit of three magic items impact mechanical design choices? Doesn't opting out of (or into, for that matter) the attunement system mean rebalancing potentially dozens of complex magic items?

 

[Kinak]

I do like limiting items and making them individually more special. I don't feel like this is the way to do it, but it might be a good first step.

I will say I liked the optional Charisma bonus to attunement better (even if it started with a base value plus Charisma bonus). Both because it makes sense to me and I like Charisma doing things.

It also feels like other effects should be mixed in there. Attuning to magical sites (or spirits or whatever) seems like an obvious one. Buffs occupying those slots also could have some merit.

At the end of the day, though, it's never really been static items that make D&D magic feel "unmagical" to me. It's usually the pile of potions, scrolls, and wands that accumulate at the bottom of players' inventories.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[DEFCON 1]

Are you, though? I feel like this isn't one of those optional 'improvements' a DM can just hand wave. Won't a limit of three magic items impact mechanical design choices? Doesn't opting out of (or into, for that matter) the attunement system mean rebalancing potentially dozens of complex magic items?

Nope. Because it doesn't sound like there's any "balancing" being done per se for or with magic items at all regardless. That's why they keep saying that they've removed the expectation of magic items from character progression. Magic items are being considered outside of character progression balance.

Any magic item added to a character for additional power is something an individual DM will have to account for on their own, rather than the game supplying rules to do it for you. So as an extension to that... any parts of the magic item rules themselves (used in parts or in whole) will also need to be accounted for by individual DMs if "balanced encounter design" is a very important goal for them.

If you use magic items in your game... you'll have to account for them yourself. Likewise, if you use some, none, or all of the attunement rules for said magic items... you'll have to account for them also for yourself.

 

[DMZ2112]

Nope. Because it doesn't sound like there's any "balancing" being done per se for or with magic items at all regardless. That's why they keep saying that they've removed the expectation of magic items from character progression. Magic items are being considered outside of character progression balance.

A fair assessment. I hope you are right!

 

[lkj]

It strikes me that the in-game explanation for a limit on attunement is pretty easy-- It takes a certain amount of spiritual or mental investment to create a communion with a powerful item and that one can only make so many such commitments before losing too much of oneself or becoming overloaded.

Why 3? Well, as someone mentioned, it's as good a number as any. However, if we just consider that a baseline, I think it opens up some nice opportunities for 'modules' that expand how attunement works in the game. It would be easy to imagine that different items require different levels of commitment-- so perhaps attuning with some great artifact instantly wipes away your attunement with any other item. Or, mechanically, 'this takes up two slots!'.

One could even imagine something more granular (in a more detailed module), where you have some pool of will determined by various factors (wisdom? charisma? level? training?) which lets you commit so much of yourself to items before you begin to lose yourself. Different items would have a different cost. Maybe there's increasing negative consequences as your pool becomes tapped.

Heck, you could have this play off of other things as well-- like your ability to dominate or manipulate others. I can see it coming into play in performing a powerful ritual. Sort of an insanity point mechanic.

Obviously that's way beyond what you'd want to do in the core game. But I can see certain campaigns where I wouldn't mind having a system like that.

Anyway, the short of it is that I think it should be pretty easy to have the flavor appear to dictate the mechanic in the core rules-- part of making magic items mysterious and cool. And I think it's pretty important that the mechanics serve the flavor. Sure, it's nice that attunement gives you another way to moderate the effect of powerful magic. But when I read attunement rules I want that to feel like some side effect of this cool system for giving magic items more weight and intrigue.

AD

 

[Obryn]

I like the basic idea, but how long until there's a feat or class feature that removes the item limit?

I'm not loving the Cha Mod optional rule, though. In point buy, it seems like a low ROI when you have no idea how many magic items will be handed out. In rolled stats, it's impossible to say. But the idea of only attuning to 1 item for a lot of characters (anyone with <=13) seems weird.

Overall, though, I think Next is doing fine with magic items. I just wish they'd bit the bullet and took out all d20 modifiers from them. No bonuses to attack, AC, etc.; just special effects.

 

[DMZ2112]

Overall, though, I think Next is doing fine with magic items. I just wish they'd bit the bullet and took out all d20 modifiers from them. No bonuses to attack, AC, etc.; just special effects.

Ehhh, I'm not a big fan of flat bonuses either -- this is exactly how I feel about feats -- but I think you need +1 through +5 (or whatever) weapons in D&D, not just thematically but also because sometimes you just want a sword that hits things better, rather than something flashy.

When I'm picking a character option I'm in total agreement -- don't just make me better, make me different; give me choices. But forcing my fighter to have a sword that catches fire, or detects secret doors, or sings, or even just /glows/ in order for me to get a slight combat advantage is a bit much.

I think this is very much an issue for setting and character design, rather than the core rules; flat-bonus magic items should be easy enough to hand wave out if you want every +1 longsword to also be a flametongue.

 

[Cybit]

A fair assessment. I hope you are right!

Based on everything I seen; he is spot on with that assessment.

 

[Texicles]

Three is a magic number.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU4pyiB-kq0

Also:

"...then shalt thou count to three; no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out..."
- Book of Armaments, Chapter 2, verses 18-20

 

[fuindordm]

I like the fixed number rather than tying it to a stat such as Cha. Even if Cha makes good thematic sense, I wouldn't want a drastic difference between the number of items allowed to different party members. The benefit to lore doesn't offset the detriment to play.

On the other hand, a Cha/Use Magic Device roll to attune (or de-attune), allowed once per day, would make sense and still give a neat advantage to high-Cha characters.

For those who like a little more variation in the number of items, I suggest this:

Completely mundane characters get 5 attunements. Their magical aura is a blank slate.
Characters with minor spellcasting or supernatural abilities get 4 attunements. Part of their aura/one of their chakras is already tied to a magical tradition, and no longer avaiable for attunement.
Spellcasters get three attunements. A major portion of their aura is constantly occupied by their magic.