D&D 5E Attunement

[jbear]

I think it's fine to run your game with the magic items you see fit as you see fit. Personally my group (4th level) have only just encountered their first magical item (other than healing potions) and not yet acquired it, and it is just a +1 short sword with some backstory and a bit of attitude. But everyone runs things as they prefer so that's all good.

From what I have read, I liked the suggestion to categorise Items as Minor or Major. My thinking was headed down that line as well in a manner. With that in mind...

My possible suggestions to your problem would be the following:

- Give out items that do not require attunement
- Decide upon which items that currently require attunement and remove that restriction (Minor Quest?)
- Decide which items you are giving out do not warrant in your opinion attunement and remove the restriction before handing out
- Rather than hand out new items, have treasure come through as an upgrade of the powers of their currently attuned items
- Have future treasure cause useless item powers to blend with their attuned items
- Have part of the quest alter PCs in a way that allows attuning a 4th item (This could upgrade at a later point in the campaign to a 5th item when you felt appropriate)
- If you cannot find any options you find satisfying: scrap attunement

 

[clearstream]

- The most common boosts in attunable items (not including the complicated and obvious ones, like Holy Avenger, Robe of the Archmagi, etc):
• Provides ability bonus or high static ability (e.g., Amulet of Health, Ioun stone, Belt of Giant Strength, etc)
• Allows casting (by any class) of one or more spells or abilities that mirror spells (e.g., Ring of Invisibility, Eyes of Charming, Boots of Levitation, etc)
• Provides spellcaster with ability to cast spells without expending spell slots or extra spell slots (e.g., Staff of Power, Crystal Ball, Wand of Fireballs, and Ring of Spell Storing, Pearl of Power, Tome of the Stilled Tongue, etc)
• Provides damage resistance or immunity to any class (e.g., Ring of Warmth, Frost Brand, Brooch of Shielding, etc)
• Armor that provides damage resistance or immunity (e.g., Dragonscale armor, Armor of Resistance)
• Allows use of an item without requiring proficiency (e.g., Animated Shield, Dancing Sword, etc)
• Provides movement bonus or alternate move mode (e.g., Boots of Speed, Cloak of Arachnida, Ring of Free action, etc)
• Extra bonus to AC without regard to class, or disadvantage on being attacked (e.g., Ring of Protection, Cloak of Displacement, Ioun Stone, etc)
• Bonus to saving throws without regard to class (e.g., Mantle of Spell Resistance, Necklace of Adaptation, Ring of Spell Turning)
• Does extra damage without requiring a precondition (e.g., Vorpal Weapon, Bracers of Archery, Oathbow, etc)
• Provides Advantage specifically on Stealth or Perception checks, or Initiative (e.g., Cloak of the Bat, Eyes of the Eagle, Weapon of Warning, etc)

So if an item provides a non class-specific boost (like extra damage, bonus to saving throw, ability increase, damage resistance, move bonus, AC bonus, Advantage on Stealth/Perception), it should require attunement. If an item provides a spellcaster with the ability to cast spells without spell slots, it should require attunement. Armor that provides damage resistance requires attunement.

- Items that don’t require attunement follow these guidelines:
o Weapons have specific requirements (Giant or Dragon Slayer, Vicious Weapon, Mace of Smiting, etc)
o Armor has no extra combat effect (Dwarven Plate, Elven Chain, etc)
o Rods and Wands are usable by any class (Immovable Rod, Wand of Magic Detection, etc)
o Wonderous items are utilitarian and without combat effect, disappear after use, or are usable by any class (Bag of Holding, Deck of Many Things, Manuals, Carpet of Flying, Boots of Elvenkind)

Nice work. As I think your breakdown helps to illustrate, attunement isn't solely about power level, but also about considerations like stacking. KarinsDad argues that the +X weapons are more powerful than stat boosting items, which I think I agree with individually. But say I have three +1 swords - I'm still only getting +1 on my attacks. By comparison, if I have three Strength Ioun stones - now I have +6 to my strength which is a bigger impact.

What I like about attunement is that it is a very simple and yet relevant constraint that forces trade-offs. As I've argued back up the thread, it's possible to do some game design and create a mechanic that addresses the issues raised. I'm not convinced that the cost of that design is worth the effect on play.

 

[billd91]

Nice work. As I think your breakdown helps to illustrate, attunement isn't solely about power level, but also about considerations like stacking. KarinsDad argues that the +X weapons are more powerful than stat boosting items, which I think I agree with individually. But say I have three +1 swords - I'm still only getting +1 on my attacks. By comparison, if I have three Strength Ioun stones - now I have +6 to my strength which is a bigger impact.

I think it may also be about limiting transferability. I think it's pretty obvious that magic items that are good at enabling PCs to deal with obstacles or boost defenses can't be immediately transferred between PCs. If you have a flaming barrier to get through, you can't just have a single item that confers some fire resistance, send a PC through with it, and then toss it back for the next guy to use it to come through... not without spending an hour attuning each transfer.

 

[CapnZapp]

The limit is there to keep PCs from hoarding the items in one set of hands and to prevent the PCs from getting too many items for balance purposes. 5E is not 4E and the basic assumption is that you'll have far fewer items. You should - using the item distribution recommendations in the DMG - find about 6 non disposable items (not scrolls, potions, etc...) per PC *over their 20 level span* - and only 3 of those on average should be attuned. If you follow the advice in the DMG, the odds of all the melee characters finding a magic weapon in their career isn't that great, either...

In general, they want the items to be iconic for a PC - even if they're rarely used. Players should never forget any of the items that their PCs own. They don't want the items to just be some checklist of defenses.

For example, in a game with a lot of magic items, a PC with a ring of water walking might forget all about it (amongst all of his items) until he falls in water. It is just another of many abilities and isn't really that exciting compared to some of the other things he can do.... When you have a lot of items, many of them fall into the "Oh, yeah ... I also have this" category of 'treasures'.

But if it his only magic item, the player may look for places to use it strategically ... looking for places where the PC can walk across liquids and sneak up on enemies that thought they had him blocked off... That is more exciting.

You're free to ignore the recommendations, but I suggest trying them out for a long time (a year or so) before doing any major tweaks...

That would be fine advice, except for one thing.

Mist of us have played D&D for years and years, and we already have a pretty good picture of how we like our game.

Meaning all the things you just said are things people have known for decades, and still might play magic heavy games; thus this thread.

In short, it's okay to not use the book solution and instead venture out on a forum to ask for other solutions, hoping fellow gamers will still help out, and not just point out they're not doing it by the book... [emoji4]

Regards,
Zapp

 

[KarinsDad]

That would be fine advice, except for one thing.

Mist of us have played D&D for years and years, and we already have a pretty good picture of how we like our game.

Meaning all the things you just said are things people have known for decades, and still might play magic heavy games; thus this thread.

In short, it's okay to not use the book solution and instead venture out on a forum to ask for other solutions, hoping fellow gamers will still help out, and not just point out they're not doing it by the book... [emoji4]

Regards,
Zapp

Yeah, I crack up when someone posts that a table is having badwrongfun because they are not doing it exactly the way the book says.


In the game this weekend, I used the mine map out of LMoP and just changed most of the stuff in it. I kept the magic mace and the magic breastplate because they were interesting and they actually match part of the current campaign. Just before we got into the room, one of the players said that a TPK would be ok because lower level is nice because DMs are more willing to hand out magic items. He wasn't expecting to find any magic items in the mines, let alone two in one room (the only non-consumables I have in there).

As it turned out, nobody really wanted the magic mace because it requires Str and more than half of the party uses Dex weapons (or have other options/limitations). The fighter took it to fight undead with mace and shield (since it does similar damage to his magic greataxe against undead, but he can put on a shield with his Action Surge ability and have better AC with the same damage).

 

[clearstream]

In the game this weekend, I used the mine map out of LMoP and just changed most of the stuff in it.

This approach also helps answer the question of items that need attuning but would be weak in the campaign context: change them out. That's easier in a homebrew of course, because nothing enters the campaign that wasn't expressly chosen by the DM. Even the most superficially useless item might turn out to be valuable within a specific context. Less good in pre-made perhaps? One would like to imagine that the authors chose things that would be useful in their story arc, but I don't think they can be expected to predict what other pre-made story arcs a group might go on to play.

But if the problem is that for your group's play style, some items are not worth attuning: it can be a partial answer to change out those items.

 

[KarinsDad]

This approach also helps answer the question of items that need attuning but would be weak in the campaign context: change them out.

I don't understand what you mean by the phrase "this approach". What does the approach of using a map from a module have to do with magic items?

 

[clearstream]

I don't understand what you mean by the phrase "this approach". What does the approach of using a map from a module have to do with magic items?

You said that you "used the mine map out of LMoP and just changed most of the stuff in it". That approach of changing the stuff in it is what I was discussing: it was apposite.

 

[KarinsDad]

You said that you "used the mine map out of LMoP and just changed most of the stuff in it". That approach of changing the stuff in it is what I was discussing: it was apposite.

So do you mean by "it can be a partial answer to change out those items" that the PCs (i.e. players) should do this, or the DM?

The attunement issue being discussed here really has nothing to do with attunement items that have little utility. That is a side discussion. The attunement issue is that of modifying the house rules to allow for more attunement items for more magic heavy campaigns.

 

[Parmandur]

You can do what you want, of course, but the reason people are reluctant to back it up is that a lot of game assumptions are tied into it. Do so with caution.

Personally, I'd make magic weapons, all magic weapons, count towards the item limit. Keep things under control.