D&D (2024) 2024 needs to end 2014's passive aggressive efforts to remove magic items & other elements from d&d

[CapnZapp]

I really dug the PF2 playtest item that linked magic items to Charisma mod. You could have as many as your CHA mod minimum of 1. Made Charisma a more useful stat. Players went bananas though and killed it. Cha is apparently a favored dump stat of players.

Their loss.

I find that the lack of a decent-to-high Charisma is the biggest limitation on any character I'm supposed to play.

(That doesn't mean I can't understand the objection. Why would you choose one specific stat for something as crucial-to-every character as attunement/investment points?!? Obviously you need something class-neutral for something equally important to all classes, yes?)

 

[nevin]

it also benefits Sorcerer's, Paladin's and other's instead of the Melee who need the magic items more.

 

[payn]

Their loss.

I find that the lack of a decent-to-high Charisma is the biggest limitation on any character I'm supposed to play.

(That doesn't mean I can't understand the objection. Why would you choose one specific stat for something as crucial-to-every character as attunement/investment points?!? Obviously you need something class-neutral for something equally important to all classes, yes?)

If magic items are a requirement like 3E and I suppose PF2, it could be seen as an issue. If magic items are simply nice to have then it gives CHA a really nice boost in value that I believe it needs.

 

[CapnZapp]

I've been working on this house rule for some time, waiting for my next turn in the DM chair.

Attunements: you can be attuned to a maximum of 1+proficiency bonus magic items.

Magic items do not require attunement to use, instead, items with attunement only allow access to their basic abilities without attunement.

For example, the Ravenaxe, an ancient Dwarven weapon that lusts for Drow blood, glows with scarlet faerie fire when Drow or half-Drow are within 60' of it, and inflicts an additional 2d6 fire damage to those foes.

However, when attuned to the Ravenaxe, the wielder gains resistance to fire (whether they are holding it or not). In addition, a successful critical hit casts flame strike directly on the target of the critical hit (catching the wielder and others nearby in the blast).

-

I got this idea from a cursed berserking axe that showed up Tales From the Yawning Portal, which, in addition to it's other "abilities", increases your hit point total by 5 if you are attuned to it.

Basically: yes, there's a lot of untapped design space here.

Note that what you're proposing (two different layers) is sort-of along the same lines as my suggestion.

You could easily say that the Ravenaxe provides its basic powers if you spend 1 attunement point (out of your 10). To get the additional benefits, you need to spend one more. Just as an example I mean.

PS. There's one win here that might not be apparent: for some items it helps if the player is clear on whether the item is attuned or not. By spending >0 attunement points you have made a clear choice. (Not saying this necessarily applies to your axe; talking in general about how "but you're not attuned" can become an issue for some items)

 

[CapnZapp]

easiest skills to make your character powerful in pathfinder are Bluff, and diplomacy. Chr based. That's why.

True for every game.

Or rather, the second easiest way to become powerful.

The by far most effective minmaxing approach is for you as a player to charm the Dungeon Master, and skip the entire rules-based layer!

 

[CapnZapp]

it also benefits Sorcerer's, Paladin's and other's instead of the Melee who need the magic items more.

Let's just agree there is no one ability that we can argue deserves to control attunement more.

The obvious solution is to instead choose something every character gets.

Such as levels. Or actions. Or proficiency bonus.

Or, of course, to just skip the character-based connection and just go for a static number that is the same for everybody and never changes. Like three.

 

[CapnZapp]

If magic items are a requirement like 3E and I suppose PF2, it could be seen as an issue. If magic items are simply nice to have then it gives CHA a really nice boost in value that I believe it needs.

Oh believe me PF2 is very much like 3E in this regard. Or rather, PF2 is 3E and then some, in this regard.

Magic items is not merely something "nice to have" in PF2. It is, just like in 3E, a must have and the absence of magic bonuses would break the game.

PF2 is even more precariously balanced than 3E/PF1. Even the difference of just a point or two makes a huge difference.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Let's just agree there is no one ability that we can argue deserves to control attunement more.

The obvious solution is to instead choose something every character gets.

Such as levels. Or actions. Or proficiency bonus.

Or, of course, to just skip the character-based connection and just go for a static number that is the same for everybody and never changes. Like three.

I think it would make more sense to base it off your caster status, full casters get 2 attunement slots, halfs get 3 and martials get 5

 

[mamba]

We even have almost a decade of posts and discussions where people far beyond this thread ask for help dealing with it... Those discussions usually start with a gm presenting a problem like one of these

none of the ones listed will be fixed by 2024, the playtests should have made that abundantly clear by now, that would require a level of redesign that the compatibility mantra does not permit

 

[tetrasodium]

Sure absolutely.

And yes, I have only engaged with two rather specific issues: other than rational pricing the specific suggestion "bring back body slots". I am fully aware saying "that might not be the solution you're looking for" isn't actually a solution. It's only meant as a way to perhaps not spend energy better spent on other things.

If we discuss in general, I honestly don't think WotC is interested in providing much more detailed advice to DMs wanting to use magic items.

I don't defend that stance and I'm not saying it's right. I think WotC are perfectly content having the cake while also eating it; meaning in this instance they don't want to issue specific advice because a) that is a lot of work b) that opens them up to criticism and c) it can cause the customer base's perception of the game to move towards the "too complex for me" position.

Again, not defending this stance. The game absolutely is complex and addressing that complexity would be the intellectually honest thing to do. However, I believe WotC has decided they can live with this given the astounding influx of new customers. Whether they will realize in time that these new customers might expect more in 2024 than they did in 2014 is of course another question entirely.

I certainly am not holding my breath. If they only added (rational, utility-derived) prices for the magic items in the DMG (thereby setting a precedent for every subsequently published item), that's all I ask for personally. (I can even live with this price being expressed as a number from 1-20 rather than specific gold amounts so different GMs can feature different Big Mac indices in their various campaign worlds.)

I think the reason why we prioritize the pricing differently is because we put a different weight on all of the entirely unreasonable areas where the GM needs to work in order to fix the results of players actually being able to get their hands on magic items. Most of my games were set in eberron so I seized on efforts like sane magic item prices & others less easy to reference early on when I was already starting to fight problems caused by 5e's efforts to force the one true way of "magic items are always a boon".

Having 2024's magic item prices that are somewhat better than or at least as good as I'd expect from a chatgpt output would absolutely be nice, but they wouldn't matter if 2024 doesn't also fix all the ways that PCs having them dumps problems on the GM to maintain "always a boon" design