D&D 5E Increasing/Modifying Attunement

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Isn't that logically the opposite of how it should work? Wouldn't a wizard be the ideal candidate for breaking the limit?

No, because they're so used to wresting control they're bad at letting magic flow through them. Or the weave decided they have enough plot coupons. Or whatever fanwank you deem acceptable to improve the caster/non-caster balance situation.

 

[commandercrud]

No, because they're so used to wresting control they're bad at letting magic flow through them. Or the weave decided they have enough plot coupons. Or whatever fanwank you deem acceptable to improve the caster/non-caster balance situation.

Balance and sense are entirely different things.

 

[Mort]

Balance and sense are entirely different things.

It makes perfect sense, at least to me, that someone who is already suffused with magical energy will have "less room" for further magical energy necessary to attune to items. Very easy to justify in game - if that's what you are going for.

 

[the Jester]

I feel like increasing the base number of attunement slots- or for that matter decreasing it- is a great way to tweak the feel of a given campaign.

Personally, I like the way the three slot limit works, and I've got a couple of ways that I've been tweaking it via how I design or convert magic items.

The first is to give real thought to whether a given item should require attunement at all. I'm actually in the middle of a major revision of my magic items right now and one thing I've found is that now, years into running 5e, I'm erasing "requires attunement" from about 25% of the items that I originally gave it to.

The second is to address attunement requirements within specific magic items themselves. I was converting the magic items from Adventurers Vault 2 (4e), and within it are a bunch of item sets- for example, the "Raiment of the Phoenix" item set includes a cloak, crown, mask, and scepter, and you get extra powers out of them the more pieces of the set you have. I gave these item sets the following special trait: "You only need one attunement slot to attune to this set of items, in whole or in part. However, while it is split up, different creatures can attune to its different pieces."

I also converted a bunch of items from the 3e Magic Item Compendium that are crystals that you attach to weapons or armor to give them extra powers. For these, I added this trait: "If you clip it onto a weapon [or armor, depending on the item], you can attune to both the weapon and the crystal with the same attunement slot."

I also have a few items that modify the attunement rules, for instance:

Ring of Rings
Ring, legendary (requires attunement)
While you wear this magic ring, you can wear one magic ring on each other finger without needing to attune to them, even if they normally require attunement.

(This is a conversion of a magic ring I used in 2e to make a villain modeled after the Mandarin.)

 

[TwoSix]

Isn't that logically the opposite of how it should work? Wouldn't a wizard be the ideal candidate for breaking the limit?

Any mortal can only control so much magic flow within their spirit. Most of a wizard's spirit is spent attempting to control the magic of their prepared spells; a totally non-magic fighter has the ability to bear much more magic on them as they aren't burdened with their own.

 

[el-remmen]

You're kind of eliminating a major ability for Artificers, for one thing.

I only use core rules/classes/lineages in my game (+ some few house rules, obvi). So I have never even read the artificer or know what book it is in - thus had not considered it, nor am I concerned. If I run a different game with artificers, I'll be sure to keep that mind, tho. Thanks.

 

[J-H]

The first is to give real thought to whether a given item should require attunement at all. I'm actually in the middle of a major revision of my magic items right now and one thing I've found is that now, years into running 5e, I'm erasing "requires attunement" from about 25% of the items that I originally gave it to.

I'll be doing this for my next game.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Balance and sense are entirely different things.

'Cuz magic cuts both ways. I gave an answer that makes sense. Here's another. The god of magic wants to limit how much can be in any mortal's hands and casters already wield too much. Or how about a nearly full vessel can take on less? Or this was part of the 1984 Jock-Nerd accords.

Mechanically, non-casters need more to be brought up to par. In 1E, fighters could use spell scrolls, wands, whatever, and this helped close the gap. Then 2E decided what D&D needed was a "rich get richer" style, and removed that. This columnated in the absurd level of caster dominance of 3E we're still suffering from today.

 

[Shiroiken]

I've increased the number of attunement slots in my first campaign, which went from level 1 to 18. Unfortunately this turned out badly, so I'm unlikely to do so again. In future campaigns, 3 worked out quite well. It forces the party to abandon weaker magic items, which I allowed to barter for non-attument/consumable items. It really cuts down on the Christmas Tree PCs.

There is also the houserule idea I have seen posted that Attunement Slots = Proficiency Bonus.

If I did adjust again, this seems much more reasonable. It weakens options at lower levels, puts it to standard for the "sweet spot," then slowly allows more as the party moves to epic tier.

 

[el-remmen]

I've increased the number of attunement slots in my first campaign, which went from level 1 to 18. Unfortunately this turned out badly,

What did you increase it to? Were there any other limits?