Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shiroiken" data-source="post: 8398809" data-attributes="member: 6775477">Of the six anomalies, five of the six make a certain level of sense, even outside of the rules described.Special material armors have had some conflicting use over the editions. In AD&D they were part of the magic item treasure tables, although they were specifically described as being non-magical. In 3E they were simply equipment that could be purchased. In 5E they went back to being on the magic item table... without stating they aren't magical. From a legacy perspective, adamantium armor shouldn't be considered magical and thus wouldn't require attunement.Goggles of Night seem to be a mix between magic and technology. They're a modern item extrapolated into a fantasy version, rather than a "true" magic item. Because of this it makes a small level of sense for them to be transferable like modern night-vision goggles can. It's a weak argument though.Mount items shouldn't require attunment by the rider, but the mount itself. Since they don't have rules for non-PCs using attuned items, it simply got ignored. An argument could be made that an item normally worn that requires attunement could be made in the shape of a mount item (such as a Saddle of Defense), in which case it would require attunement by the user.The periapt doesn't make any sense, and is probably just from a balance standpoint. Or it was overlooked in editing and simply left that way.</blockquote>