D&D 5E L&L for 5/12

[I'm A Banana]

I hope you're not surprised that I don't dissent from any of that.

But have a look at the polls on "should magic items be in the DMG or the PHB". It's pretty much one-way traffic on this issue. So Attunement may be the best they can do to open a door to player/character-focus within a framework that begins from an assumption of total GM-control.

Totally. I think the poll results stem from a historic/traditional D&D model that treats magic items as bonus treasure rather than as character-defining options (which wasn't even all true -- arguably a big part of the power of OD&D/1e/2e fighter was supposed to be her access to more and better magical equipment!) If that's what "magic items" are, then it makes sense that those things wind up in the DMG. But "equipment as a character feature" is a slightly different way of approaching gear than D&D has done, and it might not be clear that that's an entirely different thing from magic bonus treasure.

KM, pemerton : I see where you come from, and I think "magical gear as part of the character" is a perfectly valid playstyle and an interesting venue, but as it departs quite a lot from mainstream D&D, would be better addressed by a *module*. This is the reason why I think attunement is a great placeholder : it is an entry point for whatever way of handling magic items that befits your table, and it literally begs tinkering. I don't think the main purpose of this mechanic is the handling of the Xmas Tree Plague (a lower EWL would actually fit the bill better), as much as weaving the items in a narrative, including a background and a purpose. Attunement can be seen as a question to the player/character : do you accept the side quest attached to the item. Not too bad, actually.

You know, items-as-quest-generators is one of the more appealing things about this L&L column to me. It's a cool idea, and explicitly links the risk and reward element of magic items in a way that is pretty exciting. I've got brain ideas from that, and like Martha Stewart says, it's a good thing.

 

[SkidAce]

I don't see the issue with players building PCs to suit the play environment they know their GM prefers.

Bravo!

 

[MarkB]

One way to play it without the item limit, but with still some limitation, would be for the items in your campaign to have lots of different requirements and motivations. That way, a character could walk around decked out like a Christmas tree, but to do so and actually have all his items be functioning, he'd be spending all his time trying to fulfill a wide variety of incompatible goals.

 

[The Black Ranger]

I know for certain that nobody in my game will be identifying an item during a short rest.

If you are wary of attuning to an item, the identify spell reveals all of an item's properties and drawbacks. Though this spell is no longer necessary to learn an item's secrets, it does save you the risk of first attuning to an item and then learning what it does.

So why even bother with identify?

 

[The Black Ranger]

One way to play it without the item limit, but with still some limitation, would be for the items in your campaign to have lots of different requirements and motivations. That way, a character could walk around decked out like a Christmas tree, but to do so and actually have all his items be functioning, he'd be spending all his time trying to fulfill a wide variety of incompatible goals.

No no no no no no no........

Please no more Christmas tree characters.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I know for certain that nobody in my game will be identifying an item during a short rest.

If you are wary of attuning to an item, the identify spell reveals all of an item's properties and drawbacks. Though this spell is no longer necessary to learn an item's secrets, it does save you the risk of first attuning to an item and then learning what it does.

So why even bother with identify?

(Assuming you meant "So why not always use the spell?")

Because it isn't necessary anymore, so players won't feel like they need to learn it. In this new system, Identify becomes "detect cursed item," which is much less of an auto-pick.

 

[Mistwell]

I know for certain that nobody in my game will be identifying an item during a short rest.

If you are wary of attuning to an item, the identify spell reveals all of an item's properties and drawbacks. Though this spell is no longer necessary to learn an item's secrets, it does save you the risk of first attuning to an item and then learning what it does.

So why even bother with identify?

Because it, "saves you the risk of first attuning to an item and then learning what it does."

IE, you avoid cursed items that cannot be removed without a remove curse spell once you put them on.

 

[tuxgeo]

Because it, "saves you the risk of first attuning to an item and then learning what it does."

IE, you avoid cursed items that cannot be removed without a remove curse spell once you put them on.

Apropos of this: in 3E, "Identify" was a 1st-level Sorc/Wiz spell, but "Remove Curse" was a 3rd-level Cleric spell.
If you had a Wizard in your party who could cast "Identify," the problem of cursed items was solved at 1st level.
If you didn't have a Wizard, but had a Cleric, you could get that cursed suit of armor off your carcase when your Cleric reached 5th level.

That's a big time difference in some campaigns.

 

[The Black Ranger]

How do we know that a cursed item doesn't take affect until the character attempts an attunement?

 

[Mistwell]

How do we know that a cursed item doesn't take affect until the character attempts an attunement?

I think that's how all the playtest examples worked.