D&D 5E Dissapointed with Attunement

[Steely_Dan]

Yeah, I don't believe this to be true.

So, in the first point, I believe that NEXT magic items will be roughly as core as druids, monks, and sorcerers

Funnily enough they mention the Druid, Paladin and Sorcerer (?) in the Magic Item doc.

I also totally agree with the rest of your post.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I really want attunement, including the number of items you can attune, to be well tied to the story.

Story is going to vary a lot from one, well, story to the next. In one setting, attunement might have something to do with the soul, in another, psychic powers might be involved, or Fate or life-force or whatever...

What would be some good attunement rituals?

Obvious possibilities would be using the item in the way it's meant to be used, and succeeding. Slaying a worthy foe with a weapon, successfully casting a spell with a wand, surviving a battle while wearing a suit of armor, protecting an ally with a magic shield, hitting a difficult target with bow, etc.

Alternately, the attunement could relate to the goal of the item's creator. A weapon made by an elf mage for a war against orcs wouldn't activate for killing just any enemy, but might not require you to kill an orc, just go into battle against one, or conversely, might require an acknowledgement or blessing from elves or other traditional enemies of orcs. A holy item might require a pilgrimage or blessing. A knightly item an oath of fealty to the kingdom it was made to serve.

Or, attunement could be more a matter of personal focus and will. Meditation or an actual magical ritual with the item to bring it under your control. Less 'story flavor' but more personal and less arbitrary.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And I really can't believe that a chaotic and unpredictable and perhaps destructive and optional pure character power-up reward that you roll for on a table and may never even award is at all as key to the core D&D experience as one of the fundamental choices that give your character an identity.

Yet that's exactly the point critics of modern D&D make when they disparage the wealth-by-level attempts at making items a balanced or player-driven.

How many games have you seen or heard of that don't use magic items

Vanishingly few. Items have always been 'figured in' in one way or another. You couldn't use a lot of monsters in classic D&D if the players lacked the items needed to stand up to them, for instance. Magic items did a lot of thing that PCs otherwise couldn't. In modern D&D, you got formulas or guidelines or targets for magic items, but, even as they came under better control, they also stopped doing a lot of things PCs couldn't.

or that use magic items sparingly

I've seen more than a few 'low magic' games that made magic items very rare, and the funny thing about them was that they usually didn't put any such limitation on casters, and casters ended up, by contrast, much more important and powerful than in a regular game where there was a chance non-casters could pick up a big enough collection of items to help them keep up.

How many games have you seen where the group doesn't allow the Fighter?

None. OTOH, the number of games in which no one plays a fighter because other classes are just flat-out better...



If 5e really wanted to take the 'best' of prior eds with regards to magic items, it'd have a fairly solid and balanced set of guidelines for the sort and number of magic items PCs should have at a given level, with players exercising some choice in what items are appropriate to their characters, as in modern D&D, but, the items would be powerful and potentially character-defining as they were in classic D&D. Thus, a non-caster who lacked the power and versatility of innate magic could expect to make up for it with an interesting/potent signature item chosen by the player to fit his concept.

 

[nightwalker450]

Items attuning...

Necklace that strangles the wearer for a few minutes, if they survive then they are attuned.

Blazing sword that can be gifted, (no attunement time) but if taken without the owner's permission than it damages any who touch it.

Charm that will never work for the person that actively tries to obtain it (through theft or even purchasing), but will bestow its power upon someone who is given the item as a token of friendship.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Items attuning...

Necklace that strangles the wearer for a few minutes, if they survive then they are attuned.

Blazing sword that can be gifted, (no attunement time) but if taken without the owner's permission than it damages any who touch it.

Charm that will never work for the person that actively tries to obtain it (through theft or even purchasing), but will bestow its power upon someone who is given the item as a token of friendship.

Nice!

Here are a few more.

• An everfull mug attunes to its owner by having him taste forty different substances, but can then produce exactly what the owner wants at any time.
• A shield that must spend a day from sunrise to sunset pointed directly at the sun. This ritual must be performed once per year during the heat of summer.
• A warhammer that must smash an object of sentimental value.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Would you therefore say that the Wizard is opt-in?

Depends on how one defines "wizard," really. I think having a core class whose schtick is using magic spells is default. Personally, I think memorization and preparation (ie: the academic archetype) is part of that default. I think Vancian spellcasting mechanics (slots) should probably be opt-in, even though they've been in more D&D games than they've been absent from. They might end up being average, but the "default" needs to be something that's easy for newbies to understand, and I don't think Vancian magic is. Slots are not an intuitive mechanic. 4e's wizard dailies as "X spells per day, chosen from your spellbook" is a much better one.

And it's really unquestionable that, in terms of determining encounter design relative to a party's strength, attunement > no attunement, yes?

I'd question this. There's no real attempt in the rules right now to use attunement as a balancing mechanism. I don't think it's any better as written than "pay attention to the magic items you give out" is. There's no promise that those three items are going to not be overwhelming when attuned, either individually or in combination.

P.S. you never hit on the other good part of attunement - that it effectively replaces magic item "slots" which feel very video game (even if they predate video games)

That's a great point. Attunement is a much more solid, grounded concept than slots were.

I don't think attunement is a bad idea per se. It's got a lot of good germs of ideas in there. I don't believe it should be an assumed part of magic item distribution, though.

Yet that's exactly the point critics of modern D&D make when they disparage the wealth-by-level attempts at making items a balanced or player-driven.

True. I think there's a subtlety that lies in there, though: unpredictability of magic items is default. Part of the fun of magic items is finding out what they do, if they're safe, etc.

Keeping them as a DM opt-in means that this element is retained. The players don't know when or if they're ever going to get an item. If they do, they don't know if it might be cursed, or if it might disappear on the first moonless night of the month, or if it is intelligent and has a goal of its own, or what.

If magic items were assumed as the default, this element would be lost: every player would know they'd be entitled to X magic items, and a DM who didn't give them out would be stingy.

If 5e really wanted to take the 'best' of prior eds with regards to magic items, it'd have a fairly solid and balanced set of guidelines for the sort and number of magic items PCs should have at a given level, with players exercising some choice in what items are appropriate to their characters, as in modern D&D, but, the items would be powerful and potentially character-defining as they were in classic D&D. Thus, a non-caster who lacked the power and versatility of innate magic could expect to make up for it with an interesting/potent signature item chosen by the player to fit his concept.

It's not the power that makes pre-3e magic items interesting. It's the mystery.

And that's something that "balancing" them always takes away, because balance turns it from something you can add, to something you HAVE to add.

Honestly, try it some time, even if you're playing 4e. For my Thursday game, I just rolled up some Elyas Perfume. Adapted from 2e, I have it give a CHA of 18 to anyone who uses it until their next extended rest, and gave it 16 uses left, and put it in the hands of a shy halfling boy with a warty face. If the PC's engage in the optional quest (helping the halfling boy win over the object of his affections -- a pretty young noble's daughter), the halfling boy will give them this item out of thanks. I don't know if they'll even engage the quest or not, or how they'll accomplish it if they do, but I put that out there.

If they play matchmaker, the halfling boy will give them "a small, pinkish-yellow vial of clear liquid." And he'll be described as being "surrounded by the scent of fragant wood, which somehow makes you forget about the small trail of snot that seems to be in constant danger of falling into his mouth." They'll be able to figure out what the item does exactly after a short rest with it, if they do a short three-before-two skill challenge with it (if they fail, they'll never know what it does until they pay the GP for a ritual that tells them).

It doesn't matter to me as a DM if they do any of that. It's extra. It's not especially powerful if they get it. I don't especially care if they figure out what it does. I don't care if no one in the party wants it (it'll probably be useless to the Cha-monkeys in the party).

It's a lot more fun than filling out the wishlist. Which, for this group, I don't even bother to do. I basically tell them when they level up to kit out their characters and give themselves the standard GP, because I'd much rather spend my time on more interesting treasure like this perfume bottle. That's fun for me as a DM, even if they don't really get to see it.

But they usually do. Knowing a secret is there to be uncovered is irresistible to them. I usually include 3-4 items like this per character level (and sometimes a cursed item or two, too), and they're always interested at level-up if they got them all or not. It's a little videogamey, I guess -- kind of like collectibles -- but it's fun for me to plant the mystery and it's fun for them to figure it out. Even if they miss some, they're curious to hear where they were.

And balance can't factor into it. If these items were required and expected and part of the player's own option list, it wouldn't be as fun. They couldn't fail as often. They couldn't be as idiosyncratic. I couldn't throw them a cursed item. I couldn't do something like the time they stumbled on the Sword of Arak that I had a mass murderer in town carry, and the party barbarian nearly succumbed to before the invoker destroyed it behind his back. That arose from randomness and the unknown and from something rather explicitly abusable (It severs limbs! It changes ability scores! It could NPC-ify a PC!). I could not have planned it. It would not have been fun if I had. I wouldn't be able to see the look of delight on my players' faces when I tell them, "I had no idea you'd even track that guy down."

That's the magic of D&D, after all: you never know what's going to happen when the players and the DM share the world.

If magic items are "balanced" and "default," the unexpected becomes the exception. With regards to magic items, the unexpected should be the rule. "Oh! A +1 Sword! Neat! I didn't expect that!" Not, "Oh. A +1 sword. About time, everyone else already had one."

 

[Tony Vargas]

True. I think there's a subtlety that lies in there, though: unpredictability of magic items is default. Part of the fun of magic items is finding out what they do, if they're safe, etc.

That's getting into stylistic and character concept issues. The wise wizard who knows the ins and outs of magic does not find an item he makes mysterious, and, unless he intended to make a Wand of Wonder, would consider an item failed if it were unpredictable. The reluctant 'thief' who'd rather be home in his comfy hobbit hole, can find items unpredictable and dangerous. Magic in a world like Eberron or FR plays a different role than it does in one like Greyhawk or Athas.

Keeping them as a DM opt-in means that this element is retained.

Which, ironically, would be fine if magic items were plot elements and minor adjuncts to the character that aren't at all defining (like they were in 4e).

The funny thing is that the modern approach to magic items - 'built in' to advancement and heavily player-influenced - is more sensible when used with classic magic items that are wonderous/potent and character-defining and/or used to make up class deficiencies. While, conversely, the classic random/DM-driven approach to magic items is less of a problem when the items are non-character-defining, and less balance-impacting ones that won't overshadow PC abilities, and positively sensible when they're 'plot devices' that are part of the story/setting - which classic items weren't, but modern takes (wealth/level items and artifacts, respectively) are.

So, if 5e uses classic items with the modern approach, or modern items with the classic approach, it could do quite well.

Attunement doesn't seem too bad. With classic items, it makes the player choose a subset of items found to actually claim and use, which puts some small measure of the character-defining impact of classic items back in the hands of the player. It moderates the DM-overwriting-character-concept, balance, and other issues with the classic approach/classic items combination.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That's getting into stylistic and character concept issues. The wise wizard who knows the ins and outs of magic does not find an item he makes mysterious, and, unless he intended to make a Wand of Wonder, would consider an item failed if it were unpredictable.
...
Magic in a world like Eberron or FR plays a different role than it does in one like Greyhawk or Athas.

It's worth not conflating magic items as an award under DM control with magic items as a character option under player control. They serve two very different purposes as game rules, even though they overlap in namespace.

I'm exclusively talking about treasure. As is the 5e playtest document. There's nothing about FR or Eberron that means that someone will necessarily know what Elyas Perfume does, or what the Sword of Arak is, or anything about any particular magic item. Maybe they can find out (that's what that big Arcana bonus is for!), but there's nothing inherent to any setting that indicates that such random and unpredictable magic items can't exist. Even FR has its lost kingdoms and wild magic. Even Eberron has the Mournland and Dragonshards. It might've mechanized the potion of cure light wounds, but that doesn't mean that every magic item is an industrial product.

The funny thing is that the modern approach to magic items - 'built in' to advancement and heavily player-influenced - is more sensible when used with classic magic items that are wonderous/potent and character-defining and/or used to make up class deficiencies. While, conversely, the classic random/DM-driven approach to magic items is less of a problem when the items are non-character-defining, and less balance-impacting ones that won't overshadow PC abilities, and positively sensible when they're 'plot devices' that are part of the story/setting - which classic items weren't, but modern takes (wealth/level items and artifacts, respectively) are.

It's actually pretty easy to cut this Gordian knot.

If the magic item is intended to define a character (which isn't something I've been talking about, since it differs from treasure), it should be a built-in character option. Perhaps my fighter is blessed by the gods and makes swords capable of bursting into flame or something. That's not a "magic item" in terms of game rules, that's a class feature, or a specialty, or something else character-controlled. In this case, it's part of the character, and shouldn't really rely on the DM to give it out, or encourage the DM to take it away.

Otherwise, it's treasure, and the DM can do whatever the heck she wants with it. Hidden secrets, new discoveries, random effects...

None of the items introduced in my games are meant to be character-defining, really (though a character could always opt into it, like the barbarian sort of did). I have no qualms about screwing with them however I see fit, since they aren't part of the assumed characters' power.

An option for a particular magic item that IS part of the assumed character's power needs to be handled under a different rubrick. And part of that different rubrick would be "not relying on the DM to give it out."

Attunement doesn't seem too bad. With classic items, it makes the player choose a subset of items found to actually claim and use, which puts some small measure of the character-defining impact of classic items back in the hands of the player. It moderates the DM-overwriting-character-concept, balance, and other issues with the classic approach/classic items combination.

I think your first sentence is pretty close to its actual intention (since it certainly ain't balance!): to make magic items feel more "special."

The issue with it there is that 10 minutes spent cuddling with your magical hammer isn't much of an investment. The ideas [MENTION=61749]Jeff Carlsen[/MENTION] and others have proposed here are awesomely better.

I'd argue that if you'd like a mechanic to give a PC an item that is part of their character identity, that this is a different mechanic than treasure, and that you really shouldn't conflate the two, since one is in the PC's hands, and the other is in the DM's hands, and if you try to put them in both places you'll end up with an unsatisfying arm-wrestling match over who gets to "pick" the item.

Let treasure be treasure.

Let character options be character options.

Both of these things can be "magic items," I think. But you won't find them in the same place in the rulebooks.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I'd argue that if you'd like a mechanic to give a PC an item that is part of their character identity, that this is a different mechanic than treasure, and that you really shouldn't conflate the two, since one is in the PC's hands, and the other is in the DM's hands, and if you try to put them in both places you'll end up with an unsatisfying arm-wrestling match over who gets to "pick" the item.

Let treasure be treasure.

Let character options be character options.

Both of these things can be "magic items," I think. But you won't find them in the same place in the rulebooks.

I was getting really frustrated with the two of you arguing back and forth, but it led to this concept, which is worth a few moments consideration.

There may well be a place in the game for magic items as a character option. It could be a Weapon of Legacy specialty, with each feat unlocking some new secret. Or, perhaps it could be a companion module to the one that grants followers and animal companions. The druid gets a bear; the rogue gets a character defining magic item.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's worth not conflating magic items as an award under DM control with magic items as a character option under player control. They serve two very different purposes as game rules, even though they overlap in namespace.

They don't just overlap in 'namespace,' they can be exactly the same thing. A wizard who makes a Staff of the Magi has the same item as a wizard who finds a Staff of the Magi. Relics excepted, most magic items are made by somebody.

If the magic item is intended to define a character (which isn't something I've been talking about, since it differs from treasure), it should be a built-in character option.

Sounds reasonable, IMHO, but I'm biased since that's what I was saying. Sadly, that's not how it's ever worked out, and 5e isn't headed in that direction. By the time 4e got around to wish-listing items, putting them very nearly under 'player control,' they'd also knocked them down so many pegs they were hardly character-defining anymore. When they were potent/significant/interesting enough to be character-defining they were the DM's province.

None of the items introduced in my games are meant to be character-defining, really (though a character could always opt into it, like the barbarian sort of did). I have no qualms about screwing with them however I see fit, since they aren't part of the assumed characters' power.

A powerful or thematic enough item can end up being character-defining, and not necessarily in a 'that's cool!' opt-in kind of way, but in a "I'd be a fool not use this overwhelmingly powerful item and base all my decisions around making optimal use of it" way.

The issue with it there is that 10 minutes spent cuddling with your magical hammer isn't much of an investment. The ideas [MENTION=61749]Jeff Carlsen[/MENTION] and others have proposed here are awesomely better.

Regardless of the details of attunement, an attunement limit puts makes which items to attune a player decision, which gives him back some small measure of control over how items will define his character. Assuming, of course, the DM gives out more (significant) items than the attunment limit...

I'd argue that if you'd like a mechanic to give a PC an item that is part of their character identity, that this is a different mechanic than treasure, and that you really shouldn't conflate the two, since one is in the PC's hands, and the other is in the DM's hands, and if you try to put them in both places you'll end up with an unsatisfying arm-wrestling match over who gets to "pick" the item.

There's little choice. If items are significant enough to be character-defining, that aspect needs to be considered. The trick is getting the right iteems under the right 'rubrik.' Most DMs would be inclined to keep very poweful items under their control, and let players make/buy/wish-list/whatever, trivial items - if only to keep the balance (power level) of their campaign under control. Unfortunately, that puts the wrong items in the wrong bailiwicks, and the DM ends up defining charcters with treasure, instead of just letting treasure be treasure.

If items are 'figured in' and balanced (but significant), and players have significant influence over what items they end up retaining, then the character-defining items are doing their job, defining characters to fit player concepts. If treasure items short-durration 'wild cards,' plot devices, and non-character-defining nick-knacks (however colorful and interesting), that works, too. You can keep them separate and workable.