D&D 5E Attunement

[KarinsDad]

If the brooch, as an example, is so situational and pointless, why are the PC's attuning it? Shouldn't they just sell it and open up the slot?

Perhaps they will. I suspect that the obvious answer is that they are attuning it until something better comes along.

 

[Hussar]

Perhaps they will. I suspect that the obvious answer is that they are attuning it until something better comes along.

So, isn't your 3 limit problem somewhat self correcting?

 

[KarinsDad]

So, isn't your 3 limit problem somewhat self correcting?

The limit of 3 is not self correcting without a house rule.

And not all items are as worthless as the brooch.

 

[Warbringer]

The limit of 3 is not self correcting without a house rule.

But this is the "house rulings" edition. Rule away as it has no impact on the rules

 

[CapnZapp]

Honestly, I don't see how that brooch justifies all those words. Yes it's situational to the point of worthlessness. But so are many other items. So why not simply ignore it and move on?

Besides, it's there for nostalgia. It's been in the rules for editions...

 

[Hussar]

The limit of 3 is not self correcting without a house rule.

And not all items are as worthless as the brooch.

But your just got through talking about how many of the items aren't worth attuning. If that's true then what's the problem? Players will only attune the stuff the really want.

 

[billd91]

Honestly, I don't see how that brooch justifies all those words. Yes it's situational to the point of worthlessness. But so are many other items. So why not simply ignore it and move on?

Besides, it's there for nostalgia. It's been in the rules for editions...

And it's actually more useful in this edition than in most...

 

[Celtavian]

And it's actually more useful in this edition than in most...

If you were fighting a warlock or group of them, you definitely want that brooch.

 

[KarinsDad]

If you were fighting a warlock or group of them, you definitely want that brooch.

Assuming that the warlocks are targeting the PC with the brooch. That's an additional issue with items that have extremely rare utility. Even when the situation comes up, the PC may or may not get (or want) to use the item.

The PC with the Ring of Water Walking might not be the PC that falls into the lake. Whereas every single PC with +1 armor will eventually get into combat (at least at most tables).

 

[jgsugden]

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...