D&D 5E Thoughts Regarding the Number of Attuned Items

[Raunalyn]

Officially, someone can only attune three attunable magic items. I've been getting into arguments with my players regarding this restriction. They believe that this is too restrictive, while I maintain that the reason for this restriction is to maintain bounded accuracy and prevent the group from hoarding magic items and growing too powerful.

I would like to know the thoughts and ideas of the community around this restriction. What are your experiences? What are some alternative suggestions? Is it unbalanced?

 

[phantomK9]

Unfortunately as a player, we haven't picked up enough magic items to run into this problem.

However as a DM, I would think that as the characters achieve higher levels, that restriction might just be too restrictive. I would allow the players to attune a number of magic items equal to the Proficiency Bonus +1. It would still limit them, but at least grow with them as they attain levels.

The limit then would become
Levels Attuned Limit
1 - 4 3 items (same as current rules)
5 - 10 4 items
11 - 15 5 items
16 - 20 6 items

Of course it this is still too restrictive the numbers could be increased...

 

[cmad1977]

Maybe instead if more items you give them better ones. This way the restriction is less limiting as they might ditch the older items for the newer, more powerful ones.

 

[famousringo]

Easy fix. Go ahead and let them attune infinity magic items.

Then proceed to only let them find one magic item every six levels. Problem solved!

But seriously, one of the things I thought I'd like and turned out to hate about 3rd Ed was the proliferation of magic items everywhere. Takes all the specialness out of magic rings and swords when everybody is expected to be blinged out like a rap star in order to be effective.

Tell your players that it's not just about game balance, it's about keeping magic special, and be sure to treat it as such in your game. It's not just an amulet of protection +1, it's a blessed charm of the goddess that kindles the flames of hope and life when all around is death and despair.

 

[delericho]

I like it as-is. That said, one the big advantages of the rule is that it's trivially easy to house rule.

One thing you could consider: add a feat that allows an extra attuned item (and possibly a +1 to one stat). That way, those who really want more items can get it - if they're willing to pay the price.

(Also: were I tasked with building an Artificer class, that would most certainly be one of the class features I would be considering.)

 

[Agamon]

Magic items are unnecessary. Your reasoning is sound. I'm not sure why the players would complain about this, unless they're bringing expectations from recent editions with them.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

IMHO, your players are whining because they feel like something has been "taken away" from them. Now, if your players didn't grow up playing 3e/4e or PF, then they are likely just not used to the restriction because in 1e/2e you could have a whole bag of holding worth of magic items. Then again...magic items were in the "really nice to have, but not necessary". But if they did grow up playing 3e/4e or PF...

...then, as I said, they are probably feeling like you just took away their toy box and are now acting out in an effort to get their way. As I've always said, it's always easier to give something to players than to take it away. The designers of 5e saw this too (I hope!), because they put in Feats and Multiclassing as optional rules. Meaning that if the DM says "Yeah, sure, we'll use Feats this time around", then the players see it as "getting something" rather than the DM saying no to them and the players thinking the DM is "taking their stuff". Magic-Item Attunement is kinda the same thing in 5e.

5e is based on "no magic items needed". So, any magic item the PC's get are, truely, actual bonuses. It's like going through a drive through, paying for your meal, and finding out you got an extra apple pie in the bag. You didn't pay for it, and it wasn't assumed...it was an actual bonus.

Now, that said, the designers obviously figured magic items will play into just about every D&D game simply because going in to dungeons and fighting dragons should give you treasure...including magic items. That's been kinda the point of the game since the mid 70's; go into a dungeon, survive, get treasure. Of course, they also know they had to deal with the magic item problem that 3e/4e/PF has; the "magic item for every situation" problem. Especially when a PC can just up an make them or is assumed to be able to just go an buy whatever he wants. Given enough money and resources, just about anything can be accomplished. Like, say, take over a small country. The three item attunement limit is there specifically because of this. Because magic items are, generally, not "assumed"...but they are kept in mind... the rules need some way to give DM's a worst case scenario when they are designing dungeons, planning governments, and terraforming continents for their players to explore and engage in.

The more "attunement" you let your PC's have, the more out of whack your game will become. I guarantee that. You will start playing the Final Fantasy "one upmanship" game. The PC's can pump out 40% more damage per round...you need to up the challenge by 40%. They counter with an increase of 20% in defenses...you counter with 20% in offense.. They enhance mobility by 25%...you counter with things that decrease their mobility by 25%. Basically, you and them start getting frustrated because all this "work" is pointless and nothing is being gained other than having you and your players feeling of "Ah-ha! I can use my Magic Item of Wowzerness here!" reduced to "Oh...I would use my Magic Item of Wowzerness here, but what's the friggen point...something will nix it or make it useless anyway...may as well just attack. yay.".

I've also said in other threads.... RPG's (most, especially D&D) is a "zero-sum game". Nothing the players do in terms of builds, items, and all that other "optimization stuff" is going to do much to any well-run campaign. The only thing a player gets from spending 9 hours trying to design the "perfect build" is enjoyment out of reading rules and trying to puzzle together bonuses and stuff. After a short (very short) time in the spotlight doing his "build thing", the campaign will start to even out the playing field with other things. Either direct counters to the builds OP'ness, or things in the campaign where the OP'ness is either ineffective/pointless, or becomes an actual detriment.

Now that I've rambled on for quite a while... the "Proficiency bonus +1" option someone posted above is something I'd do if I really had to (which I wouldn't; I'm kind of a hard-azz DM and well known for being stingy with money and magic in my games...but I've kept the same players for 20 and 30 years, so I must be doing something right! ). Telling the players they can have Prof bonus +1 Attuned magic items isnt' taking anything away...its giving stuff to them. Players like that. It also doesn't get crazy. Just remember...if they still keep complaining, stick to your guns! If it starts to get to a head where they are harping on it constantly...tell them one of them can take over DM'ing for the next 8 months and then they can do whatever they want.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[I'm A Banana]

Officially, someone can only attune three attunable magic items. I've been getting into arguments with my players regarding this restriction. They believe that this is too restrictive, while I maintain that the reason for this restriction is to maintain bounded accuracy and prevent the group from hoarding magic items and growing too powerful.

I would like to know the thoughts and ideas of the community around this restriction. What are your experiences? What are some alternative suggestions? Is it unbalanced?

I'm someone who didn't like the attunement mechanic to begin with, but I've mostly come around when seeing it in play and thinking about the design purposes it serves (still a few minor issues with it, but its gains are pretty big).

Ultimately, if you're handing out enough magic items that people are running up against their attunement limit regularly, you're running a high-magic game. That's kind of the only place where that limit even becomes a consideration.

And one of the things to understand about the limit is that it is there so that the party doesn't become too powerful to be challenged. Magic items in 5e are a raw boost to your power. They are not required to do things, they are a straight-up increase.

So if you're running a high-magic game and you dropped attunement limits, your game would mainly become significantly easier.

That's not necessarily a problem if you're playing more for story than for challenge, and you don't mind the occasional "boss fight cake-walk."

But if you like a game of death and risk and the like, you probably want to tell them to simmer down.

You might also want to not reward as many magic items - even if you roll them or whatever, your party is clearly swimmin' in 'em.

That, plus send a thief in the night to steal their stuff.

 

[Mephista]

Attunement... is kind of... it definitely favors some fighting styles more than others.

~ For Unarmed Defense people, they really need Bracers of Armor to keep up with the +X light/medium/heavy armors. Bracers require attunement, while a +3 light armor doesn't; Barbarians and Monks need to max out their CON/WIS respectively to match, while mage armor peeps will always be stuck at 13+DEX, decidedly behind in AC. Barbarians, many of whom don't max out DEX, will also be significantly behind others in AC.

~ The best weapons need to be attuned, while there's only a handful of attunement shields (which also don't increase your AC, making it a curious thing where non-attuned shields tend to be better for you than attuned at high level). This means that magic item attunement favors either Two-Handed Weapons, or Sword/Board. Light two weapon users are strained, needing two attunements if you end up with fairly nice blades.

~ If you're a spellblade type, and you want to go Sword-Focus, that leaves you with two of your attunement slots consumed just with your hands. There's already an effective feat tax to function, but this kind of doubles as an "equipment" tax as well. Skalds, Favored Souls, Hexblades, etc.


The purpose of Attunement was to avoid the Christmas Tree effect, where you cover yourselves in magic items. It succeeds, but it also does so in a way that favors some styles over others. A good weapon/stave, a good armor, and a strong miscellaneous item.

This creates a situation where you effectively have to allocate your "attunement" slots to one in each hand, your armor, and if you're lucky, one open spot. Once those spots are taken... there's no longer any need for magic items. A wizard who has a nice magic robe (lets say Eyes, I think that's a good one), a Staff of Fire, and Bracers of Armor, and runs across a Ring of Spell Storing. He either has to throw out one of his old items, or not use it. It eliminates a lot of the thrill of finding treasure.

Gold! Which... you don't spend on much. Magic items are neat, but more of a curiosity before offloading them onto someone else. Scrolls and potions are handy if you need them, but a lot of people don't really play well with consumables, and often forget about them.


It creates a kind of more story driven game. Where magic needs to be handed out rarely and with great restraint, otherwise it becomes meaningless. Your players might just not be happy with that. They might want a wide variety of cool things (many of which are attunement!) but they can't.

 

[Dragonsbane]

If your players think you are too restrictive, perhaps let them know at higher levels they could attune more. If they agree, then go with this:

1st - 5th level - one item can be attuned
6th - 10th level - two items
11th to 15th level - three items
16th to 20th - four levels

Plenty of items don't need attunement. You could always adjust which do or don't as well as a further editing tool.

We haven't played to high levels, but no big game unbalance to perceive with only a handful of items floating around.