Alternative ways of handling attunement slots?

[Greywander]

I understand why attunement exists, and it's much the same reason concentration exists: to prevent stacking a ridiculous number of buffs. But something about attunement kind of irks me. It just doesn't make logical sense, in-universe (it's too meta; it clearly exists only as a game mechanic), and it seems like some classes that are more magic item reliant (namely, martials) are unfairly punished. It also pushes players toward the generic +X weapons and armor, which don't require attunement, when most of the actually interesting magic weapons and armor require attunement.

What's another way the concept of attunement could be handled? Even something as simple as giving all martials a free weapon attunement slot and a free armor attunement slot (for armor or a shield) would go a long way toward helping. Or allowing a character to attunement to as many weapons as they like with a single slot. But also alternate systems, like spending max HP or hit dice to attune to an item.

[ThatoneGuy84]

We played once "attunement slots equal to your proficiancy bonus".
It became pretty interesting at high tier play. But kept mid tier play and low tier play pretty similar.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I like it as it is. And I've actually included a setting reason for it so it's not so meta--

"Passive" items (like +X items[1]) aren't actively magical, so their energy could be baked in on creation. Active magic items need to get their energy from somewhere, at least if they're not single-use (like scrolls/potions). And since all anima (energy of creation/magic/everything) comes from living beings in my setting, that means they need wielders. Minor ones just need to be in contact with the aura of a person to recharge/function; more major ones (or those that create active effects) need to actually bond with the soul of the wielder so they can draw energy directly and shape it. This is not a trivial thing, and souls can't have an unlimited number of bonds. Thus attunement, time, and limits. And why you can find partially-charged items out there--they only recharge when they are "owned" by people.

[1] I dislike these items, as traditional as they are. They're boring stat sticks. And generic ones at that. And probably the most destructive to numerical balance of any of the items. I prefer to remove them entirely--no item gives +X to AC or attack rolls or saving throw DCs. I'm more borderline about the protection ones, but I'd rather get rid of them as well. +damage is fine, especially +elemental damage. Instead weapons and armor have quirks that make them count as magical for resistance/immunity but no direct mechanical bonuses.

[Sigreid]

Well, there's being a single class artificer.

[Dork_Forge]

Attunement=prof seems like a decent way of scaling it, though are you experiencing attunement to be that much of a roadblock to change it?

I've never played in a Monty Haul style game, my players are now having to make choices about attunement at level 12, but that's partially because there's only three of them. There's a lot of non attunement items that are pretty nice, is it just a case of we have these items but not enough slots or people feel they're actually missing out because of the cap?

As for why it's there lore wise, it always made sense to me personally as a mortal can only handle entwining so many magic items with themselves.

[Segev]

I like it as it is. And I've actually included a setting reason for it so it's not so meta--

"Passive" items (like +X items[1]) aren't actively magical, so their energy could be baked in on creation. Active magic items need to get their energy from somewhere, at least if they're not single-use (like scrolls/potions). And since all anima (energy of creation/magic/everything) comes from living beings in my setting, that means they need wielders. Minor ones just need to be in contact with the aura of a person to recharge/function; more major ones (or those that create active effects) need to actually bond with the soul of the wielder so they can draw energy directly and shape it. This is not a trivial thing, and souls can't have an unlimited number of bonds. Thus attunement, time, and limits. And why you can find partially-charged items out there--they only recharge when they are "owned" by people.

[1] I dislike these items, as traditional as they are. They're boring stat sticks. And generic ones at that. And probably the most destructive to numerical balance of any of the items. I prefer to remove them entirely--no item gives +X to AC or attack rolls or saving throw DCs. I'm more borderline about the protection ones, but I'd rather get rid of them as well. +damage is fine, especially +elemental damage. Instead weapons and armor have quirks that make them count as magical for resistance/immunity but no direct mechanical bonuses.

I agree and disagree. I agree that they're boring. I think, though, that having that plus something else is a nice way to make something with a neat but not-too-powerful ability feel just that much more magical. Shatterspike being a +1 weapon as well as being magically designed to break objects is pretty cool.

I think they do serve an additional purpose for a DM trying to balance out his game: if he can get player cooperation, giving the +1 or even the +3 item to the guy who is having the most trouble hitting or doing damage can be a way to balance the party without needing to rebuild a character.

An odd thought: The Sure Knife: Gives +1, +2, or +3 to hit with the lower of two dice when you roll Advantage or Disadvantage, and deals that much bonus damage if you use the lower of the dice to make the hit.

[Dr. Cliché]

I don't mind weapons giving +1 to hit/damage/AC/saves.

My issue is when that's all they do. That's when I find them to be rather dull.

But I think a weapon that gives +1 to something and also has other, more interesting abilities is fine.


Also,

An odd thought: The Sure Knife: Gives +1, +2, or +3 to hit with the lower of two dice when you roll Advantage or Disadvantage, and deals that much bonus damage if you use the lower of the dice to make the hit.

I rather like this idea.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't mind weapons giving +1 to hit/damage/AC/saves.

My issue is when that's all they do. That's when I find them to be rather dull.

But I think a weapon that gives +1 to something and also has other, more interesting abilities is fine.

I agree and disagree. I agree that they're boring. I think, though, that having that plus something else is a nice way to make something with a neat but not-too-powerful ability feel just that much more magical. Shatterspike being a +1 weapon as well as being magically designed to break objects is pretty cool.

I think they do serve an additional purpose for a DM trying to balance out his game: if he can get player cooperation, giving the +1 or even the +3 item to the guy who is having the most trouble hitting or doing damage can be a way to balance the party without needing to rebuild a character.

An odd thought: The Sure Knife: Gives +1, +2, or +3 to hit with the lower of two dice when you roll Advantage or Disadvantage, and deals that much bonus damage if you use the lower of the dice to make the hit.

Like Dr Cliché, I'm less opposed to them when they also do something else. It's the bare +X weapons/armor that I have a total dislike for and plan not to use in my games. I say less opposition because I still think that giving +X to hit/AC/ability DC is the most disruptive thing you can do for game balance. And it distorts ideas--people (in my experience) will go for a "boring" item with a +X rather than a much more interesting one without, exactly because it's the biggest boost you can give.

So I'd rather just put a flat ban on things that adjust those numbers. No item-based modifiers to AC[1], attack rolls, or save DCs. And adjust the weaker items to do something else as well to make them more attractive.

And my issue with your proposed weapon is that it's fiddly--I dislike conditional branches in my hot path code. And attack rolls are the hottest of hot paths. And this one has a conditional conditional: if [advantage|disadvantage] AND [use lower dice] then [add to attacks; if hit, add to damage].

A lot of that is playing with new players almost exclusively--every additional mechanical burden ends up falling on me to remember. And I'm pushing my limit already. For example, I forgot last night that the bandits attacking from the darkness should have had advantage (they could see the party who couldn't see them, due to lights). But I completely forgot because I was juggling the needs of 5 players, a dynamic battle map (that handled the light and darkness for me, sort of), and narrative and mechanics. I want all the rolls to be able to be specified in advance and written down and rarely changed (and that only at level up or new gear). It simplifies my life tremendously. And that's the point of rules, IMO. To make the game run more smoothly and take the burden off the players and DM. Any rule that adds complication is suspect and starts with a value-add deficit in my book.

[1] mundane shields are the one exception here, because that's really more like augmenting your armor at a cost.

[Segev]

I might suggest that 5e generally is a system designed with the players having minimal choice about their magic items. Outside of starting at higher tier, items are found, not commissioned, in general.

You could ban +X items for chargen choices and still hand them out or make them available when players are shopping. Remember, the rules in 5e for shopping for magic items are brutally expensive and still leave the DM in charge of what they actually find.

If they go looking for “a magic sword,” you’re under no obligation to give them one with a +X bonus. If they want to MAKE one, you can force it to be interesting by adding quirks or common magic item traits for free.

Frankly, if they make a Very Rare +3 Warhammer or whatever, the effort they put in is probably something the rest of the party has earned enough to “keep up” with via other means and you can just treat the party as higher level for your design purposes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I might suggest that 5e generally is a system designed with the players having minimal choice about their magic items. Outside of starting at higher tier, items are found, not commissioned, in general.

You could ban +X items for chargen choices and still hand them out or make them available when players are shopping. Remember, the rules in 5e for shopping for magic items are brutally expensive and still leave the DM in charge of what they actually find.

If they go looking for “a magic sword,” you’re under no obligation to give them one with a +X bonus. If they want to MAKE one, you can force it to be interesting by adding quirks or common magic item traits for free.

Frankly, if they make a Very Rare +3 Warhammer or whatever, the effort they put in is probably something the rest of the party has earned enough to “keep up” with via other means and you can just treat the party as higher level for your design purposes.

I don't, generally, allow shopping for magic items. And making them is a rare thing either (usually a quest reward of sorts). But I've had them turn down non-+ items in favor of +X ones. Usually when I give an open-ended magic item reward, they'll pick the boring ones for their mechanical power. Which...yeah.

The problem I've found (and I've tried) with just bumping them up in effective level is that it's fragile. Sure, they can hit higher AC things. But the flat AC curve means that they're just hitting them more often. It doesn't really expand what they can take on. +AC and +Save DC items actively contract what I can use, not expand it. They cut off the low end. The high end doesn't really expand (like it would at higher levels) because they can't take the hits that are coming--you can't really push the whole party off of the d20 in AC. And a lot of the higher level stuff has DCs that they'll never reach.

So basically, +X to AC/Save DC are bad for the games I want to play/run. They shrink the pool of threats while not opening up any new stories I can tell. +ATK feel bad for the game, because they're an attractive thing (numerically) that don't really change the pool of possibilities all that much. But then I rarely use single-monster encounters, so I'm more focused on the lower end of the pool than the upper end. Maybe they make a change. But so rarely as to be basically a trap. Yay you hit that goblin 95% of the time instead of 80% of the time. But there's 99 more (hyperbole alert) where he came from.

I'll probably just not give out/make available "bare" +X items. The other ones, well, whatever. It's not like they're normally drowning in magic items anyway.

[Segev]

I'll probably just not give out/make available "bare" +X items. The other ones, well, whatever. It's not like they're normally drowning in magic items anyway.

That is my advice. Don’t give them the option.

You can always go back on this in specific circumstances. Again, consider the PC who is feeling the sting of being 2-5 pluses behind in his to hit rolls or who is doing significantly less damage. Giving him a +1, 2, or 3 weapon might shore him up just right. But make sure you give it to him and not the guy already hitting the most or doing the most damage!

[arnin77]

Prof bonus = attunement slots. Best way to go for an alternative. (That I know of)

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I had thrown out an idea in another thread for balancing martials that would apply here. It was to allow a 4th slot, but that slot prevented spell concentration. I kind of like it as it's simple, solves 2 problems and generally comes in at later levels when martials could use the extra help. I'm currently DMing a campaign with a 12th level Fighter/ Thief and he will soon be pleased when he finds he can attune to an extra item.

[furby076]

We switched to prof bonus = attunement. This hasn't been relevant, yet, even though our DM makes every custom magic item he gives an attunment slot - and he loves custom stuff.

Finally, like many here I've b een in many campaigns (2e, 3/3.5/pathfinder, and 5....we wont talk about 4). Never had an issue with "monty haul" campaigns. My dms have always been able to keep the PCs challenged through bigger monsters. The players love having big numbers and multiple options. One campaign i played (10 years...SAME characters) - we were a walking pharmacy of magic items. I had so many I'd forget to use them. Given that, the DM challenged us every adventure and every session was almost a tpk...and the dm would only use core rules (to keep his life simple/easy). We would have access to any WOTC published goods. Never an issue with tons of items. Never a walkback. I'll give you an example of my paladins holy avenger

Adamatine +5 Holy Avenger (+10 vs evil)
-Morphing
-Holy Dmg
-Smite and Divine Might did x3 dmg vs evil
-Summon/dismissable weapon
-Intelligent artifact (speak, telepathy, darkvision, knows all languages...sarcastic and at times annoying, NG)
-1 round fly (3x per day)
-Cure Critical Wounds 3x per day
-Sharp (crit 19-20)...with my paladins Improved crit (18-20), keeping it falchion (I think) 17-20, plus another ability so...this weapon crit on a 16+
-Cast Sunlight once per day


Yea....stll, never an issue for the Dm to almost kill us and quite a few times had full TPK in his campaign

[MoiMagnus]

It just doesn't make logical sense, in-universe (it's too meta; it clearly exists only as a game mechanic)

Really? I mean, similar notions were already present in previous editions, like the being restricted to only 2 rings. IMO, the attunement mechanics clears up the notion of slots to reach something much less meta:

Magical objects that have some sort of connection with your soul to allow you to trigger their effect at will need some training to harmonise yourself with them. Magical objects that are "independent" (like an indestructible object, or an weapon which is just "enhanced magically") don't need you to be attuned as their magical properties are always activated.
=> At most, I can disagree with a specific object requiring or not attunement from a in-universe perspective, but the concept itself is great in-universe.

Keeping yourself harmonised with multiple magical objects is more and more difficult, and most peoples reach their limit at 3. (Using the proficiency bonus as a limit is a reasonable houserule).

[Mastikator]

Really? I mean, similar notions were already present in previous editions, like the being restricted to only 2 rings. IMO, the attunement mechanics clears up the notion of slots to reach something much less meta:

Magical objects that have some sort of connection with your soul to allow you to trigger their effect at will need some training to harmonise yourself with them. Magical objects that are "independent" (like an indestructible object, or an weapon which is just "enhanced magically") don't need you to be attuned as their magical properties are always activated.
=> At most, I can disagree with a specific object requiring or not attunement from a in-universe perspective, but the concept itself is great in-universe.

Keeping yourself harmonised with multiple magical objects is more and more difficult, and most peoples reach their limit at 3. (Using the proficiency bonus as a limit is a reasonable houserule).

Isn't the 2 ring also strictly a game mechanic limitation for balance reason? And is there any canonical fluff that backs up this "connection to soul" interpretation?

[kazaryu]

I understand why attunement exists, and it's much the same reason concentration exists: to prevent stacking a ridiculous number of buffs. But something about attunement kind of irks me. It just doesn't make logical sense, in-universe (it's too meta; it clearly exists only as a game mechanic), and it seems like some classes that are more magic item reliant (namely, martials) are unfairly punished. It also pushes players toward the generic +X weapons and armor, which don't require attunement, when most of the actually interesting magic weapons and armor require attunement.

What's another way the concept of attunement could be handled? Even something as simple as giving all martials a free weapon attunement slot and a free armor attunement slot (for armor or a shield) would go a long way toward helping. Or allowing a character to attunement to as many weapons as they like with a single slot. But also alternate systems, like spending max HP or hit dice to attune to an item.

i mean, you *can* just ignore it altogether. obviously depending on how many magic items you give to PC's it will unbalance them relative to the standard CR calculations. but since you're clearly willing to take on that bit of extra work i don't see why you need to have any limit. In my current game DM is just limiting it based on the old standards. i,e. neck slot, ring slots, cloak, etc.

[Throne12]

I understand why attunement exists, and it's much the same reason concentration exists: to prevent stacking a ridiculous number of buffs. But something about attunement kind of irks me. It just doesn't make logical sense, in-universe (it's too meta; it clearly exists only as a game mechanic), and it seems like some classes that are more magic item reliant (namely, martials) are unfairly punished. It also pushes players toward the generic +X weapons and armor, which don't require attunement, when most of the actually interesting magic weapons and armor require attunement.

What's another way the concept of attunement could be handled? Even something as simple as giving all martials a free weapon attunement slot and a free armor attunement slot (for armor or a shield) would go a long way toward helping. Or allowing a character to attunement to as many weapons as they like with a single slot. But also alternate systems, like spending max HP or hit dice to attune to an item.

Why does it make no sense. It a game mechanic just like classes that the DM takes And make up why this acts like this in there world. If you want to get rid of it and play the way you want. But thats going to unbalance your game. You can look at other systems like numenera when you can't have too many magic items because there magic effects each other and if there is too much magic close together they will explodes.

I look at 5e attunement as this you get 1 armor slot, 1 weapon slot, and 1 item slot. 5e just can't handle you having a magic boots, pants, shirt, gloves, hat, item In lefthand, item in right hand, ring 1-8. What I been experimenting with. Is copying Matt Mercer vestiges. Where a magic item starts with x,x, and x abilities then later it gets x and x more abilities. Then it finished stage it get x and x abilities. So your getting 3 items in 1. Now I hear you say then what about giving out loot. Well the party can go out questing to unlock the new stage of item. Or you can put in magic ingredients needed to use on item got get to next stage.

[KorvinStarmast]

I understand why attunement exists, and it's much the same reason concentration exists: to prevent stacking a ridiculous number of buffs. But something about attunement kind of irks me. It just doesn't make logical sense.

Sure it does: to many potent magic items interfere with each other, but it certainly isn't as well explained as the example for Numenera. (cf below)

It's the bare +X weapons/armor that I have a total dislike for and plan not to use in my games.

Well poop, there goes my chance for a +1 rapier. Dil sings a sad song ...

PS: at higher tiers of play, +1 AC / +1 it was interesting to see how saves get very swingy; there are normaly only two of six save abilities proficient; a +1 is handy. Also, I have found that monsters hit more often (ignoring armor class) quite frequently since their proficiency bonus also increases with CR. We have a never ending quest in the Tier 3 campaign that I spent the most time it to find ways to create disadvantage on our attackers ...

For example, I forgot last night that the bandits attacking from the darkness should have had advantage (they could see the party who couldn't see them, due to lights).

Lucky for me or that bandit captain/leader would have done for Dil!

mundane shields are the one exception here, because that's really more like augmenting your armor at a cost.

And magical shields do have a nice 'feel' to them.

(Using the proficiency bonus as a limit is a reasonable houserule).

Just makes high tier play more "Monty Haul" but you can also toss in a few extra demons to balance it out.

You can look at other systems like numenera when you can't have too many magic items because there magic effects each other and if there is too much magic close together they will explodes.

Feedback/resonance. I was in a D&D campaign years ago, before WoTC, where the DM would now and again do a "resonance" check if we had items (like magical weapons) of differing alignments on the same character. Cursed items also could also trigger this ... it was an interesting scheme that fit his world nicely. Magic was dangerous and rare, but it was also powerful ... however in this edition the 'drawback' feature is mostly restricted to cursed items and artifacts.