I have been playing some of my original characters from AD&D through the various versions of Dungeons and Dragons as they came out and look forward to doing the same with D&D 5e.
I am definitely being challanged when it comes to my main character (17th Dwarf Fighter) and dealing with his current magic items.
Regarding Attunement as desribed in downloaded DMG, I can't imagine that maximum of 3 Attuned items at one time will stay that way in final published DMG. I am thinking that it may either be something like -
1 Attunement per 3 or 4 levels, or there may be feats that would allow for more than 3 Attuned items per character.
So what are your thoughts on final rule for Attunement limit, keep it as is or change it? I would probably abide by DM ruling when playing either way.
Thanks
Cauldor wrote:
Cauldor wrote:
Cauldor wrote:
Like Zardnaar said, not all items require attunement. I agree with Mistwell that it's a good decision to limit items as well. In the playtest there was an optional rule allowing attunement based on CHA modifier that I liked and would like to see appear in the DMG as well.
Shasarak wrote:
I'm curious about how many of the items your character had were actually pertinent to the character, vs how many were just obligatory stat upgrades.
Attuments will be largely ignored much like tracking weight of all the coins you're carrying or how a lot of people just skip handing out XP and just get levels.
The fact is it is clunky, doesn't make any sense and it's hard to remember. While restricting magic items by slot makes sense to people since people tend not to wear multiple hats or pants and remembering you can only have 1 on any slot is easy. Remembering you can only have 3 attuned items and then remembering which items that you possess that require attument is a feat of mental gymnastics way beyond what MANY players want to deal with.
It's also awkward as heck. For high level play where you can expect to die several times a day, lose your magic items during a fight and require 3 short rests to get them back. If you capture an enemy you're going to have to wait 24 hours (and keep a party member 100 feet away the whole time holding them) before you can use their items or be forced to kill them or torture them and wait an hour for the short rest to unattune.
No one wants that level of hoop jumping. It's really dumb and pointless.
Had they any design chops at all the attument system would have hung off people's existing mental structure and gone 1 weapon, 1 suit of armor or outfit, 1 accessory. People can remember that, although the accessory thing is a bit shakey but what do you want for 0.3 seconds of mental effort here? Maybe 1 held, 1 worn and 1 pocketed would be better. No loss on death. 5 minutes to attune which can override someone else's attunement.
Anyway. Yeah, expect it to be largely ignored. If you want to have the system work, you need to do the work yourself and prop it up. Modify character sheets with a section just for magic items that require attunement that has a column of checkboxs for attuned items with a max 3 on top. But honestly the system is so bad, why would anyone want to use it?
Ashrym wrote:
In 5e, magic items are less central to the game. They are mainly there to provide flavour and story hooks, not to supplement the character's mechanical effectiveness and the mechanics are balanced on the assumption that you won't neccessarily have any. The expectation is around 1 permanent item per 4-5 levels. So at level 17, your character would have about three and the attunement limit won't be a problem.
Keep in mind that basic +X weapons and armor (at least the +1's that we know of currently) don't require attunement. Most of the items that require attunement have special properties and give a significant boost to the character. The goal was to limit the amount of items a character can utilize at a time since the game mechanics are designed around no magic items factored in so allowing a ton of magic items per character could greatly disturb multiple systems (bounded accuracy, challenge ratings for encounter building, etc.).
I'd say give us a list of the character's magic items (and their properties for those of us who may not have the relevant sourcebook handy to look them up) and we can at least make some suggestions on which ones would require attunement and which ones aren't even useful/likely to exist in 5e.
Wow that was quick, thanks for all the replies. Ok first things first, here is list of items that my character has that I believe will require Attunement -
CORE ITEMS:
Gauntlets of Ogre Power - Yes per existing documentation.
Belt of Giant Strength - Assuming it will be required based on Gauntlets requirement above.
Hammer of Thunderbolts - Again assuming it will be based on Guantlet and Belt requirements. (I have always had Hammer, Gauntlets and Belt combo through all versions of D&D.)
Ring of Vampiric Regeneration - Gonna guess that this is yes based on power of item, but who knows?
I also have couple of items that are not critical but do influence how I play the character which is pretty vanilla fighter (but I like playing vanilla fighters, somebody has got to do it 
.
ANCILLARY ITEMS:
Helm of Teleportation - ?
Neclace of Adaptation - ?
Boot of Speed - ? I would guess yes though based on Botts of Striding and Leaping requirements.
As fas as asking my DM goes, that is exactly what I will do and will abide grudgingly if limit is three, but will look for alternate ways to use items, even if only three at a time.
Finally I do not have any problem with downgrading items from +5 to +3, kinda like that as it does dampen the magic item buff creep that seems inevitable at higher levels. I know that this might seem like too many items but please understand that they were accumulated through years of playing and that character was put of campaign that had him fighting extremely powerful beings (ie. demon lords, godly avatars), and that DM felt that these were approrpiate treasure/reqards for what was accomplished.
Thanks again for the feedback, you peeps are alright in my book!
if your DM goes back as far as you do, you may be able to argue the "Mjolnir Special" as a single Attunement. This is of course assuming that having the three actually provides additional benefits. Otherwise, you can drop the gauntlet attunement, as all it does is give you Strength 19 - and the weakest Girdle is higher than that.
Joe_the_Rat wrote:
I think this rule is only really useful when the players create their own magic items or when they can buy them. If the DM is handing out magic items as rewards, the guy knows what he's doing (hopefully) and there really is no reason to use that rule. I know I'm not going to use these rules unless I'm running an Eberron campaign.
Cauldor wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Cauldor wrote:
Cauldor wrote:
Cauldor wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Novacat wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Attunement need not be the be all and end all. Not every item requires attunement. Those items that do should provide minor benefits even if not attuned and it will be for players to decide which items they want to fully attune to at the start of the adventure and/or after a rest. I shall certainly be tweaking the rules to that effect. Item attunment then becomes about resource management. That seems cool to me.
Joe_the_Rat wrote:
Hmm looking over the SRD for the Hammer I'd say you could wear the belt and girdle without them attuned to get the other +2 out of the Hammer and unlock it's other abiliteis. You'd only need to attune the belt or girdle if you wanted their own benefits (their 5e incarnations wouldn't have any overlapping bonuses as all they do is set STR to a specific score). Unattuned items can still be worn, they just don't grant their abilities without attuning. The Hammer likely would require attunement though to be treated as more than a +3 warhammer (or a non-magical warhammer possibly).
Looks liike keep your key items on and put on the helm and attune it if you need to teleport. I don't hitnk you would need the gauntlets you us the dwarven thrower. THe Gauntlyets can go in your pocket in cas ehte DM destroyes your girdle or takes it away.
Specific items.
Gauntlets of Ogre Power - Yes per existing documentation.
Belt of Giant Strength - Assuming it will be required based on Gauntlets requirement above.
Hammer of Thunderbolts - Again assuming it will be based on Guantlet and Belt requirements. (I have always had Hammer, Gauntlets and Belt combo through all versions of D&D.)
Ring of Vampiric Regeneration - Gonna guess that this is yes based on power of item, but who knows?
ANCILLARY ITEMS:
Helm of Teleportation - ?
Neclace of Adaptation - ?
Boot of Speed - ? I would guess yes though based on Botts of Striding and Leaping requirements.
GoOP, use the 5E version.
Belt of Giant Strength requires attunement, convert the ability score directly so 23 strength or whatever is now 23 strength.
Hammer of Thunderbolts. A bit more difficult to convert, hammers in 5E already do more damage than AD&D so the double damge part can be ignored. Range is the same as a hand axe. It is a +3 weapon Have the hammer deal +d8 thunder damage as well so it is a +3 weapns for 2d8 thunder damage and can be hurled like a hand axe. Requires attunment.
Ring of Vampiric Regeneration. Can probably be carried over as is, may not require attunement ask your DM.
If any of this breaks the game oh well. You will level up faster, hit level 20 in 6 sessions or so anyway. The other items can probably be used as is and require attunment.
It's worth noting that in a tweet Mike Mearls apparently said something to the effect that the only two things the DMG would specifically call out as telling you that changing them would break the game were concentration and attunement.
So, being those two are singled out as getting a big red sign in the hacker's guide to the game (the DMG), I'd strongly recommend against messing with them.
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
5e is the edition of system mastery not required to be effective. To make that work, they have killed off a lot of combos--thus the limits on concentration and attunement.
It just occured to me that having a cursed item that requires (uses) attunement has a certain brilliance from a meta standpoint. You as a player may decide the downsides are pretty livable, but the instant you find that third item you absolutely must have, remove curse becomes a high priority.