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

[Yaarel]

As long as you're in Soveit Russia??

Or Putin Russia!

 

[Yaarel]

I propose the following magic item rarity categories:

• Very Common = Background (level 0)
• Common (+1) = Student (tier 1−4)
• Uncommon = Professional (tier 5−8)
• Rare (+2) = Master (tier 9−12)
• Very Rare = Grandmaster (tier 13−16)
• Legendary (+3) = Legend (tier 17−20)
• Artifact = Epic (tier 20−24 and higher tiers)


Ideally each magic item corresponds to a known amount of gaming power that is appropriate at a specific level. Its availability depends more loosely by tier.

 

[CapnZapp]

I would rather refer to "level" as the base metric for anything relating to it and to advancement.

With magic items, it makes sense to refer to a tier, since the items are a bit more flexible, but certain magic concepts (like at will flight) feel more appropriate after reaching a particular tier (such as 9−12).

Say a character is level 11. This character is in the Master tier for levels 9−12.
• The character can only attune one magic item of tier 9−12.
• All other magic items must be of a lower tier.
• Any magic item of a higher tier is unattunable (unless a DM says otherwise because of artifacts and similar).

That's exactly my idea, only expressed less mathematically elegantly.

If you are level 11, you have 11 attunement points.

This means that you can only attune to one item requiring 6 or more points (since you would have 5 or fewer points remaining).

The more points you have remaining the more and/or stronger items you can attune to; again up to (but not exceeding 5 points), which definitely meets the criteria for "lower tier".

And yes, any magic item of a higher tier (if there's an item requiring a whopping 12 attunement points, you would not be able to attune to it) would be unattainable (and unattunable

Of course, I would expect very very few items to require more attunement points than 7. Why seven? Because today you can attune to three items. If your item requires 7 attunement points this would mean it is one of those ultra powerful items, since you could not attune to more than two items of equal stature.

I trust you see how your proposal is very much not different than the one you responded to

 

[CapnZapp]

I think attunement points can work too. Apparently Pathfinder does it this way.

No, in Pathfinder 2 the rule simply is "you can never invest in more than 10 items at any given time".

There is no notion of some items requiring more investment than others.

The goal is literally to allow you a Christmas tree of exactly ten items (or fewer). Of course, Pathfinder 2E learned very little of what made 5E so successful and why it is widely seen as a huge upgrade over 3E (and PF1).

What we're discussing here does not include allowing more items than three, if we're talking about powerful items desirable even at high level. The benefit discussed here is flexibility: if you give up one of those ultra good items, you aren't just allowed to attune to one (1) other item - you might have freed up enough attunement points for two, three or even more items!

The idea is to allow one player to attune to three major items just like today, but another player to perhaps only attune to one such major item, and in exchange be able to attune to maybe half a dozen other more minor items!

 

[CapnZapp]

If for some reason there are players who find an hour to be prohibitive, perhaps attuning a magic item that is from a lower than current tier, only takes a 10 minute ritual to attune.

Sure, but again, don't assume every player will find it worth the hassle to maintain more than one loadout.

I mean, even if I could switch entire outfits (rings, armor, weapons, hats, magic underwear, socks etc) in just a minute, chances are I wouldn't bother.

In fact, the more convenient such a switch is made, the more I would be compelled to use multiple loadouts. And since that just seems like a lot of work, I'm actually quite happy with it taking hours to reattune yourself!

 

[CapnZapp]

It's also possible (and probably an improvement) to unlink it from an autoscaling value like prof bonus & link it to something like equipment or equipment + possibly class.

Should I guess your train of thought goes...: you can attune more if you use more equipment... you use more equipment if you're a martial and not a caster... martials deserve more attunement slots than casters... hence lets' link attunement slots to equipment!

Problem is, it isn't universally true that "more equipment" leads to "deserves more attunement points".

The game simply isn't designed with this criteria in mind, so if it feels right and balanced, that is probably more due to chance than anything else. And let's not base design balance on chance.

Anyway, I would much rather keep the default assumption "every character deserves the same number of attunement slots" because it's so simple and straightforward. Better then to solve the martial/caster imbalance by simply adding more and better martial items than caster items.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Of course, Pathfinder 2E learned very little of what made 5E so successful and why it is widely seen as a huge upgrade over 3E (and PF1).

Removing options and paring all fantasy down do 'spellcaster magic'?

 

[CapnZapp]

Removing options and paring all fantasy down do 'spellcaster magic'?

I played PF2 extensively. I analyzed my misgivings with the edition exhaustively. It's a long list - PF2 was an extremely frustrating experience: they did several things right, but oh so very many things went wrong.

It's all here on enworld if you spend the few minutes needed to trawl my posts. I would guess these posts were made over a period of one year starting in fall '20.

 

[tetrasodium]

Should I guess your train of thought goes...: you can attune more if you use more equipment... you use more equipment if you're a martial and not a caster... martials deserve more attunement slots than casters... hence lets' link attunement slots to equipment!

No I detest that italicized suggestion & sigh every time that kind of thing gets suggested.

Problem is, it isn't universally true that "more equipment" leads to "deserves more attunement points".

everyone should have equipment they need, that doesn't mean that everyone needs the same equipment or that some classes & builds should be more equal in their allotment simply on the basis that they might "use more". On that note though the "possibly" is because I'm not sure how I feel about the artificer getting more as they do because they pretty much have magic items as a class feature & it's really just letting them use said class feature.

The game simply isn't designed with this criteria in mind, so if it feels right and balanced, that is probably more due to chance than anything else. And let's not base design balance on chance.

I can think of a few ways that "this criteria" could be interpreted but don't think it really matters because it seems we mostly agree on a lot of things. When it comes down to the broad strokes high level* overview this whole redesign attunement tangent seems to start with something of an unstated "Imagine if monsters were redesigned for PCs needing magic items & magic items were completely redesigned for an entirely new role how cool that would allow a redesigned attunement could be". The part that's really odd to me is that it seems to be an effort to avoid discussion of the first two steps and efforts to mention them get diverted into alarm sounding about christmas trees & recklessly adding too many magic items to PCs.

Anyway, I would much rather keep the default assumption "every character deserves the same number of attunement slots" because it's so simple and straightforward. Better then to solve the martial/caster imbalance by simply adding more and better martial items than caster items.

Sure, me too

*fugitive idiom type usage not PC levels

 

[CapnZapp]

No I detest that

Okay so what did you have in mind?

What made you suggest connecting attunement to equipment rather than proficiency or level (or a completely static number, like 3)?