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

[Raunalyn]

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.

The amount of magic I've given is actually a little less than I've given in my Dragonlance game. This is really only about one character...he just happens to be the one who is the "right one" to receive the items he has...a magic bow that requires attunement, a Cloak of Displacement, and a magic short sword that requires attunement. There are a set of Bracers of Archery that he has, but he can't attune those and the other three items, and he's complaining very vociferously about it (I quote, "WoTC designers are smoking crack!").

Much of what you guys have said are the very same arguments I have made. One of my ideas was to allow one extra slot of attunement at 9th level (when their next proficiency bonus hits), though I do really like the idea of the feat...they want the extra magic slot, they have to give up one of their precious feats.

 

[jgsugden]

If you follow the recommended guidance from the DMG and the party has average luck on the treasure tables, this is almost a non-issue. Under those circumstances, you'll get about 6 permanent items, only 3 of which will be attuned, per PC. If your PCs find more items, the attunement rules are there to keep your PCs from being too item driven for the balance assumptions to handle.

My advice is the same on all of these types of issues: Just use the rules as written for a year before trying to make any major modifications. They had a reason for each restriction they put into place.

 

[Chocolategravy]

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?

It has nothing to do with bounded accuracy, most + items aren't attuned and they can blow bounded accuracy out.

The attune items are pretty random, like Demon Armor requires attunement, +3 plate and +3 shield don't. So if it's for balance reasons their choices on what requires attunement were pretty bad if they're trying to limit character power.

 

[famousringo]

The amount of magic I've given is actually a little less than I've given in my Dragonlance game. This is really only about one character...he just happens to be the one who is the "right one" to receive the items he has...a magic bow that requires attunement, a Cloak of Displacement, and a magic short sword that requires attunement. There are a set of Bracers of Archery that he has, but he can't attune those and the other three items, and he's complaining very vociferously about it (I quote, "WoTC designers are smoking crack!").

Much of what you guys have said are the very same arguments I have made. One of my ideas was to allow one extra slot of attunement at 9th level (when their next proficiency bonus hits), though I do really like the idea of the feat...they want the extra magic slot, they have to give up one of their precious feats.

Wait, so one dude is getting all the magic items because he's lucky enough that they all suit his character and he's got the nerve to complain about this embarrassment of riches?

It's especially tricky if one guy is getting all the loot, because if you scale up difficulty to match all his shiny equipment, his poorly-equipped companions will be left feeling weak and useless. All the more reason not to let him attune more stuff.

It's your game, and I'm not going to pretend I understand the social dynamic around your table or what kind of game you like to play, but I'm not sure appeasing the diva with rule exceptions is the right move to make here...

 

[Kobold Stew]

The play test had a variant that I liked, which was tying the number of attuned items to your CHA bonus. It was premised, of course, on the assumption that for many classes Charisma would be a dump stat: to get more attuned items therefore required character investment up front.

There are obvious problems with this,* but the underlying principle is more reasonable (IMO) than the number increasing with levels.

I really have no objections to the hard limit of three, however.


* to begin with, the large number of classes now that use Charisma as the main stat: Warlock, Sorcerer, Bard, which weren't in the earliest play tests.

 

[Raunalyn]

Wait, so one dude is getting all the magic items because he's lucky enough that they all suit his character and he's got the nerve to complain about this embarrassment of riches?

It's especially tricky if one guy is getting all the loot, because if you scale up difficulty to match all his shiny equipment, his poorly-equipped companions will be left feeling weak and useless. All the more reason not to let him attune more stuff.

It's your game, and I'm not going to pretend I understand the social dynamic around your table or what kind of game you like to play, but I'm not sure appeasing the diva with rule exceptions is the right move to make here...

Everyone in the group has at least one magic item. He did get lucky enough to find all the ones that he has, though. In our last discussion, he said that he thinks that the number of magic items I'm giving in the game feels about right...which tells me that I may be giving too many.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Everyone in the group has at least one magic item. He did get lucky enough to find all the ones that he has, though. In our last discussion, he said that he thinks that the number of magic items I'm giving in the game feels about right...which tells me that I may be giving too many.

It's probably not going to wreck the game to give him an extra attunement slot if that keeps the peace.

But I've got no idea what he's basing his estimation of the proper level of magic items on (perhaps 3e or 4e? Both of those were much richer in magic items), and I'd personally be reluctant to bow to the argument that the designers didn't know what they were doing.

I'd also say, "share the wealth, ya donk." A cloak of displacement is useful for ANYONE who is targeted in combat (especially tanks and healers). Pick the bow OR the shortsword, but why do you get both? & so on.

You may not be giving out too many magic items in general, but them all gathering on this one dude is either his good luck or everyone else's bad luck and either way, that's part of what attunement guards against.

Re-forging might be a good choice, too - if he picks the bow, the short sword can be turned into some other weapon that some other character uses (a fighter's sword or a mage's dagger or something). But he's gotta share the wealth.

This is also what attunement helps encourage - you have to pick the BEST items, the ones you MOST want, and sometimes, someone who isn't the best suited for the item, gets an item anyway.

 

[keterys]

We've found the attunement rules are useful for getting the silent accepting people to take some treasure over the boisterous needy people.

"I'm already at 3 attunements, I'd have to give up something to take that"
"She's at 1. Guess it's hers then"

While we've had people be cognizant of the limit, it has not been an actual problem. No treasure has gone unused because it required attunement, for instance. It's possible we'll get to that day eventually. Like the gauntlets of ogre power we got at early level will eventually go unused, because the true melee types have 20s, and the warlock wearing them has War Caster and multiple eldritch blasts. It's a nice-to-have in terms of better Str saves and checks, but it's no longer "and he just melees for the same damage when based by an enemy" like it was at low level.

I dunno, I think the attunement rules are really good. I think the logic behind which items require attunement, which don't, and the general balance of magic items themselves might be a bit wonky, but a limit of 3 is great. You could make a feat to let you go to 4, though. Sure, why not.

 

[Coredump]

The limit is only for certain magic items, there are plenty of magic items that don't require attunement. In general, they give the more powerful abilities. Its a good idea to have them limited.

This is really only about one character...he just happens to be the one who is the "right one" to receive the items he has...a magic bow that requires attunement, a Cloak of Displacement, and a magic short sword that requires attunement. There are a set of Bracers of Archery that he has,

What level is this guy? And I assume those are homebrew items, or does he actually have an Oathbow and is still complaining?

I also have a very hard time believing one character is the 'right one' to receive so many different items. An archer should get the Bow, a non-archer should get the bracers (it does very little for a dedicated archer), a non archer should get the shortsword, and just about everybody would benefit from the cloak but most likely a melee person.

Much of what you guys have said are the very same arguments I have made. One of my ideas was to allow one extra slot of attunement at 9th level (when their next proficiency bonus hits), though I do really like the idea of the feat...they want the extra magic slot, they have to give up one of their precious feats.

I wouldn't bother, no matter what you do, more complaints will occur later. He has plenty of magic, and many other PCs could get good use out of those items, let him share the loot.

 

[Dausuul]

Yeah, no sympathy at all for that guy. The cloak of displacement, at least, could be used by anyone in the party. Someone needs to learn to play better with others.

As far as I'm concerned, this scenario = the attunement rules doing their job.