Attunement slots are, to my mind, similar to the time required to complete a rest, which is to say, there should be significant space in the DMG dedicated to discussing the implications of modifying it from the base. In fact, I think the PH ought to lay out several options for both rests and attunement, with explicit descriptions of how each impacts play and a "check with your DM about which length of short and long rest/number of attunement slots they use".
What you say is correct. At the same time, I prefer the 2024 Players Handbook picks one default for anything, and all variants locate in the DMs Guide. While making the Players book simpler, the DMs book becomes more valuable. All magic item stuff is in the DMG anyway.
Whatever defaults they pick for the PH, they do need to explain the implications well.
You are jumping the gun a bit & overlooked the first couple steps that made them relevant. the DMG for 5e HAS a rule for what to do when two magic items need to be worn on the same body part.
MULTIPLE ITEMS OF THE SAME KIND
Use common sense to determine whether more than
one of a given kind of magic item can be worn. A charac
ter can't normally wear more than one pair of footwear,
one pair of gloves or gauntlets, one pair of bracers, one
suit of armor, one item of headwear, and one cloak.
You can make exceptions; a character might be able to
wear a circlet under a helmet, for example, or to layer
two cloaks.
This is not a rule supporting the GM, it's a tediously specific application of rule zero for players to cite to the GM. So much so that it only manages to avoid being a extreme example of a hardcore Oberoni fallacy by virtue of the fact that 5e both pretends there are no consequences to this kind of thing and it's just rule zero but phrased in a way that gets in the GM's way if they ever want to say no there. In fact it's so specific that it almost reads like "I'll show bob" type rogue commit you sometimes see in OSS projects with public repositories before they finally fork & split but put to print.
Indeed slots aren't a one stop solution & I've never claimed otherwise. Having a similar 5e rule on dmg141 that is designed to encourage rather than limit stacking is a pretty solid reason to make the comparison. When the 5e sheet lacks a couple fairly important sections related to that comparison it's hard not to point out the pattern. Those sections are areas for recording magic items and for recording attunement. 3.5 launched with similar character sheet omissions in 2003 then in the 2006 corrected them with the revised sheet(linked in the OP). Back then 3.5 was only about a third of 5e's nine year run at the time but a year later it went a step further with the 2007 MiC pg286 slots sheet. Here we are nine years in and 5e still has the tediously specific rule zero entry and a sheet that still has not been updated to include some form of the obviously missing sections for magic items & attunement.
If the missing sheet support for magic items & attunement were the only ways that 5e makes needless work that would be one thing, but that's not the case & all of the individual things add up in aggregate often presenting compounding problems like a rule that encourages a nonsense "common sense" standard while encouraging PCs engage in magic item stacking as if "yes Bob you can use both magic items" is going to result in meaningful resistance from Bob rather than a rule supporting the GM when Bob wants to push back against "no Bob".
I'm sorry but you need to cut down on the verbiage and be able to succinctly detail your misgivings if you want me to engage in this subthread any further.
5E has issues, but it has never been of the "can I wear two hats" type.
My bigger point is that the notion to limit your magic effects based on what part of the body their item occupy only works if writers strictly limit themselves to "this effect always goes on the shoulders, that effect always goes on shoes" which has never been true.
My experience with 5E is that attunement (and concentration) are such effective limiters that the issue of wearing two hats just never come up in practice. Even if you did find two incredibly stylish hat, you would not likely be breaking anything if you were allowed to wear them both at the same time.
Either the hats in question require attunement, in which case that in itself is all the limitation you need; or they just don't give out enough of a bonus that you're breaking anything.
Within reason, of course. A DM that actively wants to break 5E can absolutely do so by just handing out unlimited no-attunement items with loads of very useful effects.
But pertinent to this discussion, I don't see how a regimented body slot framework would have saved that campaign.
Sorry if this appears as if I went on to argue with myself, and I'm not really saying you have the opposite position here, but it is because I had such a hard time following your post and what and where you actually identify a specific tangible problem we could discuss solutions to.
How many people have had game interfering problems due to few magic items?
If not is it because most DMs make an adjustment? The reason I ask is that it has not come up for my groups but realize we may be doing something others are not.
So very many cool and evocative items go by the wayside simply because you already have three majorly impactful items, and you can't be bothered to collect more since that would mean the hassle of switching items in and out which almost never is worth the extra bookkeeping.
solutions that point out the issue players are complaining about and then give the illusion of letting them have what you aren't going to let them have, even if it's offering some gain in flexibility are probably DOA.
I don't understand what you're trying to say, except if you're trying to say "players are never going to be content with anything less than unrestricted item use".
Limits not only hold back imbalance, they're what makes charbuilding interesting.
Of course there's going to be a limit. I'm not giving anyone any illusions of having what they want. If you went "oh I get 10 attunement slots", didn't read the rest of the proposed rule, and immediately went "that's ten robes of the archmagi, sweet!" that's on you.
I am increasing the flexibility so that the choice between a more powerful item (with attunement) and a less powerful one (still with attunement) becomes actually interesting.
But it wasn't a carefully constructed proposal. It was an on the cuff idea to illustrate that maybe it would be best to let the body slot idea go; that other solutions can exist.
I think for me it is a cognitive disconnect. It would be like Apple suddenly saying "nope only 3 apps for you." then when people complain. "Oh it's ok you can uninstall an app and install what you need and just swap em out as needed. " Just no..
So very many cool and evocative items go by the wayside simply because you already have three majorly impactful items, and you can't be bothered to collect more since that would mean the hassle of switching items in and out which almost never is worth the extra bookkeeping.
Maybe magic items from the tiers lower than the characters current tier, can attune more briefly. Thus making these lower power items easier to swap.
The important point is "not at the same time", so as to avoid the christmas tree effect, layering, brokenness, and other problems that magic items have caused.
I don't understand what you're trying to say, except if you're trying to say "players are never going to be content with anything less than unrestricted item use".
Limits not only hold back imbalance, they're what makes charbuilding interesting.
Of course there's going to be a limit. I'm not giving anyone any illusions of having what they want. If you went "oh I get 10 attunement slots", didn't read the rest of the proposed rule, and immediately went "that's ten robes of the archmagi, sweet!" that's on you.
I am increasing the flexibility so that the choice between a more powerful item (with attunement) and a less powerful one (still with attunement) becomes actually interesting.
But it wasn't a carefully constructed proposal. It was an on the cuff idea to illustrate that maybe it would be best to let the body slot idea go; that other solutions can exist.
Bodyslots are flavorful. If using both body slots and proficiency limit, then there might be six bodyslots:
Right arm
Left arm
Head
Torso
Legs
Anywhere
At the lowest tier any two bodyslots can attune. At the highest tier all six bodyslots can attune. At level 0, only one, and at epic a seventh magic item Anywhere.
if I never hear this Oberoni nonsense again, it still would not be soon enough… Telling you that Bob will be pushing back against what is written in 3e as much as 5e has nothing to do with Oberoni
You also overlooked the parts where that post you quoted talks about the fact that the sheet itself does not in any way have a location for recording magic items or attunement
