I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
GreyICE said:The attunement rules are not "pointless" like you described them. They have a very clear point - to limit the number of math-affecting magic items a player can use.
It's ineffective at that goal. Because that player can already stack however many non-attuned +1 items they want on themselves, and then ALSO 3 of those attuned ones.
Also, what end does that goal serve? Why does there need to be a limit? Balance isn't a valid consideration when talking about magic items, because they aren't.
GreyICE said:3E and to a lesser extent 4E both had a "magical christmas tree" effect, where players had more magic items than you can shake a stick at run in anywhere close to their default configuration by high levels. 4E tried very hard to stem the effect, but it too failed. And the Magical Christmas Tree is heavily disliked.
By making magic items completely optional, they've already undone this problem. DMs hand out however many magic items they feel like, so if it "feels like" too much, they've only got themselves to blame.
GreyICE said:. "If the entire party has 1-2 magic items they can be treated as a party 1 level higher, if they all have 3, treat them as a party 2 levels higher." See? I just made a rule of thumb to help DMs with encounter design even though the magic items are not necessarily balanced into system math.
I feel like that misses the point and the fun of magic items. You've just turned it into a treadmill. That +1 sword doesn't matter anymore, since now everything is just tougher.
GreyICE said:There's no need to torture a DM just because he or she decided that magic items were fun and cool to have in a campaign.
If the DM wants to add magic items to their game, they should, with the knowledge their characters get more powerful.
If the DM is worried about more powerful characters, they should probably not add magic items to the game, because they will add to the players' power.
Done and done.