D&D 5E Magic item attunement, like-dislike?

[Capn Charlie]

So far I have been really enjoying the limitations of attunement, especially in that it allows me to give out a bit more magical treasure than I otherwise would, knowing they can only use so many of them. I rarely hand out items that lack attunement nowadays.

I think a few more attunement slots could be nice, perhaps with a feat, or class feature. I would like wizards to have an ability to attune with an additional wand or staff, something like that. I recently handed out an attunement item that adds 2 attunement slots (granting a net of +1 attuned items) and the player doesn't think it is all that great, compared to what the rest of the party got, such as an item of 19 wisdom and 21 str. Maybe he's just foolish, and maybe its not overpowered, I'll wait and see.

 

[S'mon]

There's a tendency to think the rule to be bad just because it doesn't work for you.

When it could that your campaign simply isn't following the expected default.

So: if you hand out roughly twice as many magic items (with Attunement), then consider doubling the limit.

Simple.

That does not mean the rule isn't working. For the default parameters set by the DMG.

The fact is simply that you are probably handing out more magic items than the DMG assumes. That's why you feel the limit of three to be strangely restrictive. Not because the rule is bad.

For me it's the opposite - attunement means I can hand out as many items as I like and
not worry about it, because the rules take care of it. No PC will hog all the items, so they get passed around, and excess stuff gets sold.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

For me it's the opposite - attunement means I can hand out as many items as I like and
not worry about it, because the rules take care of it. No PC will hog all the items, so they get passed around, and excess stuff gets sold.

That's what the rule means for me too.

And the way the DMG presents the options for selling the "excess stuff," and that my current group of players are happy to have our rules about buying magical items be "Almost no one anywhere takes specific requests to make magic items of a particular sort so you can't just swing buy town and buy up exactly what you want, and in fact if you find any magic items for sale in the first place it is a thin selection that you probably won't see again if you don't buy it up quick enough." means that I also don't have to worry at all about whether the party is accumulating too much "excess stuff."

In most cases, actually, the players have elected to hold onto even the excess stuff to equip hirelings and allies along the way (i.e. "You're guarding the wagon while we are in these caves. Here's a magic ring and sword to help you.") They've told me they'll start trying to sell items only when they have some specific goal in mind for the money "since a magic spear has more practical use than a sack of gold, and is probably easier to transport without attracting bandits too."

 

[jgsugden]

If you provide PCs with the recommended amount of magic items and treasure (based upon the probabilities and tables in the DMG), and the party splits treasure fairly evenly: the attunement rules are fairly meaningless. Why? Because over 20 levels your typical party that has average luck on the random treasure tables is going to end up with about 6 non-consumable magic items per PC with roughly half of those being attuned. Buying items will put you at the cap a bit before 20th level, but you shouldn't have so many funds that you're hitting the cap before level 10 unless the DM (or random luck) is very generous. For most of a guideline campaign, the rule should be mostly meaningless until the very end of the game. To that extent, it should be seen as a fringe barrier intended to keep PCs from getting too far from expected power levels.

Now, if you want to be far away from recommendations.... well, the game isn't balanced to work that way, but nobody is going to stop you.

 

[Zardnaar]

Have not really noticed it as I do not give out a huge amount of items requiring attunement.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

If you provide PCs with the recommended amount of magic items and treasure (based upon the probabilities and tables in the DMG), and the party splits treasure fairly evenly: the attunement rules are fairly meaningless. Why? Because over 20 levels your typical party that has average luck on the random treasure tables is going to end up with about 6 non-consumable magic items per PC with roughly half of those being attuned. Buying items will put you at the cap a bit before 20th level, but you shouldn't have so many funds that you're hitting the cap before level 10 unless the DM (or random luck) is very generous. For most of a guideline campaign, the rule should be mostly meaningless until the very end of the game. To that extent, it should be seen as a fringe barrier intended to keep PCs from getting too far from expected power levels.

Now, if you want to be far away from recommendations.... well, the game isn't balanced to work that way, but nobody is going to stop you.

This is a case of expecting that average to match the actual result, which is not actually very likely to happen.

The average is more likely to be reached because of some highs and some lows, such as one character wishing they had a 4th or 5th attunement slot because the party came across items they would like to use, and another character never filling their 2nd or 3rd attunement slot because those very same items don't hold even a "I guess I'll attune to it just so that someone is using it" appeal to them, than by every piece of data in the a set (read: each character in the party) being exactly at the average.

 

[Li Shenron]

Whats your take on magic item attunement in 5e?

I thinks its a good idea but limited to 3 is a bit low. Also some items that require attunement I think shouldnt. Ioun stones I think shouldnt require it.

In general the idea of attunement is a concept we have used before in 3e. I don't treat the 5e version of it as a set of hard rules, but rather as an example on how to limit the "christmas tree effect" and the problem with giving magic items to NPCs, but even more as a starting point for creating magic items that are more personal, more wondrous, and more tied to the story.

 

[Blue]

I'd like somewhere between this and how 13th Age does it.

You have 4 attunement slots. However, attuning an item of greater rarity costs extra slots. This keeps the concept true while still limiting items.

First tier (1-4) common items take 1 slot (of which I don't think there are any), others take more.
Second tier (5-10), uncommon items take 1 slot, others take more.
Third tier (11-16), rare and uncommon items take 1 slot, others take more.
Fourth tier (17-20), very rare and lesser items take 1 slot, others take more.

Each step above what you can wield takes an extra slot. Common, uncommon, rare, very rare, legendary.

Yes, this particular setup means that legendary items always take multiple slots. At 17th it takes two of your attunement slots leaving you with two left. Luckily you started up one with this plan.

So a 1-4 level character could have two uncommon items attuned. Not bad. Or even one rare or very rare.
At 5th to 10th you're sort of around where you are now. You could have four uncommon items, but a rare and two uncommon works. Very rare and common or two rare also work.
11th to 16th you doing slightly than now in almost all realistic cases.
At the last tier of play, for all intents you have a full other slot over what you have now, unless you are blessed enough to have a legendary item, in which case just be happy.

 

[RotGrub]

Attunement is nothing new, The Ring of Sustenance is an old item.

 

[mellored]

Generally like, but i would tweak it.

You get 1 attunement point per level. More powerful items take more points.

decanter of endless water takes 1 point.
bag of holding takes 2.
+1 sword/armor would take 3 points.
+2 sword would take 6 points.
holy avenger takes 15.

or some such.