Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MG.0" data-source="post: 6675796" data-attributes="member: 6799436"><p>What I find arbitrary about that particular example is that the reasoning is purely metagame. Coming up with an in game reason for the difference is an exercise in rationalization, and therefore to be avoided (in my games).    Slot requirements? No idea what you are referring to. I've not played 3rd or 4th editions, if that helps. I'm used to playing campaigns in 1st and 2nd edition with low to mid magic availability and the idea of magic shops on every corner is horrific. Perhaps that's the difference. In my experience attunement isn't needed to keep things from degenerating to the point you are describing, but I see it could be useful for inexperienced DM's.    The mention of stacking bonuses was pulled form the DMG's own logic for implementing attunement on magic items, page 285.    That is the only sensible argument for attunement I've heard. You may notice that I'm less impressed by mechanical factors, and more by story driven ones.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />    For me, it wasn't that it caused problems, but rather the converse: Removing attunement does not create problems. As a bonus, I felt the narrative qualities of a game without attunement are superior to one with it, although your emulation of fiction argument does carry some weight.  Ok, I think I've exhausted all I want to say on the matter.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification