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

[CapnZapp]

@tetrasodium

Am I understanding you right? You are saying, there can be a magic item, whose benefit is to grant the ability to attune a number of more magic items. So, for a DM who wants to run a "christmas tree" campaign, there is an easy way to do this, by introducing this "attuner" magic item into the campaign. Not a bad idea, and is an easy way to offer a "modular" option for this old school play style. Probably this magic item should be separate from the treasure list, and in a section dedicated to a many-items style of play with advice on how to balance and manage it.

Isn't this overthinking it?

Why can't the DM wanting a more 3E-style christmas-y campaign just double, triple or outright remove the attunement slot limit? Without asking for permission from the DMG first I mean.

Making an object out of it is probably bad, since, even if the item is explicitly labeled optional (like all items aren't optional already), it will give the impression the game somehow needs a bigger attunement slot limit.

(Maybe I'm misunderstanding and you can ignore this post)

 

[CapnZapp]

In 3e there was an item, the Hand of the Mage, that had, as one of it's abilities, the ability to allow the user to benefit from a third ring.

You can already have three rings in 5E.

If you want to port this item to 5E, you want it to say something along the lines of "this item can wear a ring for you, and it can attune to it for you. For all other purposes you're considered the ring's wearer at all times, as long as you carry or wear the hand."

It would effectively let you attune to 4 items, as long as at least one of these items is a ring (not a burdensome limitation). It would probably rank as one of the most, if not the most, desirable items of your campaign, assuming a healthy sprinkling of magic items of course.

 

[Yaarel]

Isn't this overthinking it?

Why can't the DM wanting a more 3E-style christmas-y campaign just double, triple or outright remove the attunement slot limit? Without asking for permission from the DMG first I mean.

Making an object out of it is probably bad, since, even if the item is explicitly labeled optional (like all items aren't optional already), it will give the impression the game somehow needs a bigger attunement slot limit.

(Maybe I'm misunderstanding and you can ignore this post)

A DM can do anything. ... But not everything works. For an inexperienced DM (or even an experienced one), drastically altering how the game engine works can be intimidating and risky.

The description of variant magic items that increase the quantity of attunements, can come in a section of the DMs Guide with suggestions of tried-and-true methods of managing abundant magic items, how to dial the amount of magic items, and advice to maintain a functional and challenging game, despite veering away from the expectations of the game engine.

 

[CapnZapp]

Generally, I am skeptical regarding the use of "points" for attunement. Any character optimizer will min-max the points to achieve the most powerful expenditure possible. Example, normally, spending all the points on a single extremely high level magic item will almost always be far more powerful than lots of low level items. Predictably it would break the game.

You would be wise to not simply assume.

I can easily many cases where I wished for some flexibility; where I would gladly switch out, say, a powerful but straightforward/not really exciting +2 item for a +1 item that basically does the same thing but with 1 point lesser power, if and only if I could also get something "on the side".

As a simple example:

If you could get a +2 skill item bundled together with a +1 weapon, would you take that instead of a +2 weapon?

No?

How about if you got two of those items? Three?

You don't need to answer. In particular don't goo all wooosh and answer "I would never choose anything else than the +2 item" because that's simply never true. You just want something else than skills.

Instead just soak my point here.

A five point item plus a two point item could be more fun than one seven point item. Your tier idea could work too; I'm just not convinced it doesn't just add a layer of clutter with little benefit. 5E is about keeping things simple. Of course 5e24 won't do either of this ("always 3" is arguably always even simpler); I'm just saying that if it did it would probably try something that avoids creating a whole new subgame.

Like body slots. Or item tiers.

But what do I know.

 

[CapnZapp]

A DM can do anything. ... But not everything works. For an inexperienced DM (or even an experienced one), drastically altering how the game engine works can be intimidating and risky.

But the inexperienced DM doesn't need to change the 3 attunement slot rule?

I would argue that any DM that tries this is pretty much by definition a sufficiently experienced one.

That the DMG doesn't even bring up the notion this limit can be changed is probably a good thing, since it helps new DMs not to mess with it before they're ready.

 

[Yaarel]

You would be wise to not simply assume.

I can easily many cases where I wished for some flexibility; where I would gladly switch out, say, a powerful but straightforward/not really exciting +2 item for a +1 item that basically does the same thing but with 1 point lesser power, if and only if I could also get something "on the side".

As a simple example:

If you could get a +2 skill item bundled together with a +1 weapon, would you take that instead of a +2 weapon?

No?

How about if you got two of those items? Three?

You don't need to answer. In particular don't goo all wooosh and answer "I would never choose anything else than the +2 item" because that's simply never true. You just want something else than skills.

Instead just soak my point here.

Heh, while I care about building for flavor, and rarely do any convoluted builds, I happily engage "normal" character optimization. I occasionally doublecheck char op manuals to see what works well together.

I myself would definitely spend any attunement "points" in the most powerful way possible (as long as it matched the flavor of the character concept).

Think of 3e Expanded Psionics "psionic points". The biggest protest against it being overpowered was the complete misunderstanding that one could spend all of the points on a single high level power.

 

[CapnZapp]

I do see a need to accurately assign the amount of power of an item to an appropriate level.

This is akin to figuring out how much a magic item should cost, but it is about figuring out which level it belongs to.

Yes. Just lazily throwing out "rare" or "common", and often being outright wrong even there (where you find an uncommon item more useful than a rare one), just doesn't cut it.

The idea to rate items on rarity (or even worse "how much does it cost to manufacture?") needs to die in a fire. Anything related to reality just isn't relevant here. Character power is the sole defining factor.

The only item rating you should ever use is a rational sober power evaluation, that's finegrained enough that you can use it to assign gold prices, and then let the heroes into the magic shoppe with a wheel-barrow of gold, and they will come out reasonably balanced.

 

[Yaarel]

But the inexperienced DM doesn't need to change the 3 attunement slot rule?

I would argue that any DM that tries this is pretty much by definition a sufficiently experienced one.

That the DMG doesn't even bring up the notion this limit can be changed is probably a good thing, since it helps new DMs not to mess with it before they're ready.

Unless there is advice, a DM might want to introduce powerful magic items for the sake of flavor, or one of the players falls in love with it and really wants it, or just because magic items look fun − with little clue about how much mechanical trouble the DM is getting oneself into.


I learned about the dangers of magic items the hard way. To be fair, this was during an other edition, not 5e. But it started with making the game fun by granting magic items whose flavors were appropriate − and ended by destroying the game by making all the encounters ridiculous.


The 5e game design needs a clear, accurate, and precise understanding of how powerful EACH magic item is, a default system to present magic items in a stable way, and sound advice for how to manage a game with abundant magic items.

 

[Horwath]

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.

1st, it was a dumb idea to start with so it's good that the playtest killed it.
There is no real reason to have Cha instead of Con or Int or Wis as requirement for how many magic items you can have.

2nd, OFC that Cha is favorite dump stat of players, we are more or less bunch of antisocial introverts and dumping charisma is just projection.

 

[Yaarel]

1st, it was a dumb idea to start with so it's good that the playtest killed it.

Hey! No fantasy shaming!

There is no real reason to have Cha instead of Con or Int or Wis as requirement for how many magic items you can have.

2nd, OFC that Cha is favorite dump stat of players, we are more or less bunch of antisocial introverts and dumping charisma is just projection.

It is less the case in 5e, but in earlier editions, under the influence of Sorcerer, Charisma sometimes represented innate magic, being larger than life, having an epic destiny, being "lucky", and so on. Meanwhile the Rogue "Use Magic Device" skill explicitly relied on Charisma to "hack" a magic item that one doesnt qualify for. So using Charisma to represent an affinity with magic items made some sense.


In 5e, the "spell casting ability" is probably the best way to represent this concept.