I have decided to tell the DM's in the games that I play in my chars will now follow this policy, and I will implement this in my own game. This does not really impact campaigns where magic is relatively scarce, but does impact campaigns where magic items are easily available.
If a Magic Item:
Source books says it requires Attunement: It requires Attunement
Has a Command Word: It requires Attunement
Alters/enhances a players mental or physical abilities in some manner: It requires Attunement
Creates some symbiotic relationship with the player: It requires Attunement
Some examples affected by this policy:
Driftglobe or Rope of Climbing: Command Word:
Periapt of Health, Sentinel Shield, Goggles of Night: Affects the individual physically or mentally
Bag of Holding: Allowing a char to rummage through a 64 cu foot bag and find something in one action = symbiotic mental relationship, and operates like Heward's Handy Haversack, which requires attunement already.
"Standard vanilla" magic weapons and armour are not impacted, but those with special abilities will most likely require attunement.
Are you looking for any particular feedback here, or just sharing with the world?
Since this is a self-imposed restriction, more power to you. If your players enjoy it, mazel tov.
I wouldn't personally be this strict with attunement, unless I was specifically running a low magic game. This will render a lot of items, especially those that are particularly situational, entirely obsolete. However, if the Attunement process were reduced to, say, 10 minutes, then I'd find it less concerning. Long enough to make impractical in a tense moment, but short enough to swap out the Rope for the Globe without significantly stalling the whole party.
So maybe an "Attunement Tier" system would be fun to play with. "Major" items could require a Long Rest, "Standard" items would require 1 hour, and "Minor" items would require 10 minutes.
I mean if you want to nerf and restrict your character that's on you. But as a DM I would not impose it on other characters, so don't complain to me if they're using more items than you.
Bag of Holding: Allowing a char to rummage through a 64 cu foot bag and find something in one action = symbiotic mental relationship, and operates like Heward's Handy Haversack, which requires attunement already.
The Handy Haversack actually doesn't require attunement.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Are you looking for any particular feedback here, or just sharing with the world?
Since this is a self-imposed restriction, more power to you. If your players enjoy it, mazel tov.
I wouldn't personally be this strict with attunement, unless I was specifically running a low magic game. This will render a lot of items, especially those that are particularly situational, entirely obsolete. However, if the Attunement process were reduced to, say, 10 minutes, then I'd find it less concerning. Long enough to make impractical in a tense moment, but short enough to swap out the Rope for the Globe without significantly stalling the whole party.
So maybe an "Attunement Tier" system would be fun to play with. "Major" items could require a Long Rest, "Standard" items would require 1 hour, and "Minor" items would require 10 minutes.
What class of items do you think it will render obsolete?
I wouldn't personally be this strict with attunement, unless I was specifically running a low magic game. This will render a lot of items, especially those that are particularly situational, entirely obsolete..
What class of items do you think it will render obsolete?
The Driftglobe is basically just a magical lamp, except for the single-use Daylight spell. If the party knows that they will be encountering an area of magical darkness, then maybe someone would be willing to attune to it, but that would mean unattuning to something more reliably useful, like the Bag of Holding. It would be less of a burden for the Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/etc to simply prepare the spell or carry a scroll (Depending on availability).
If the players don't know the obstacles in advance, they can't reasonably justify attuning to anything that doesn't have all day value. This means that if they need to climb a wall in an emergency, they're going to have to stop, spend an hour attuning to the rope, climb, and then stop to spend another hour reattuning to their Bag of Holding, so that they can access their potions of healing in the future. If they're being chased and encounter an obstacle like this by surprise, using the Rope of Climbing isn't even a viable option.
The party will need to plan under the assumption that these items are inaccessible, and once they have a plan, they should never need to rely on the items at all. An hour is a long time in game.
A more practical alternative to attunement might be to give unattuned magic items a different cost. For example, make command words consume Hit Dice. Or have the Bag of Holding deal 1 point of damage per use. Enough to discourage without making them impossible to use in a pinch.
Edit: The Doss Lute is an interesting example of an item that can be attuned, but can also be played unattuned at the risk of psychic damage.
I wouldn't personally be this strict with attunement, unless I was specifically running a low magic game. This will render a lot of items, especially those that are particularly situational, entirely obsolete..
What class of items do you think it will render obsolete?
The Driftglobe is basically just a magical lamp, except for the single-use Daylight spell. If the party knows that they will be encountering an area of magical darkness, then maybe someone would be willing to attune to it, but that would mean unattuning to something more reliably useful, like the Bag of Holding. It would be less of a burden for the Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/etc to simply prepare the spell or carry a scroll (Depending on availability).
If the players don't know the obstacles in advance, they can't reasonably justify attuning to anything that doesn't have all day value. This means that if they need to climb a wall in an emergency, they're going to have to stop, spend an hour attuning to the rope, climb, and then stop to spend another hour reattuning to their Bag of Holding, so that they can access their potions of healing in the future. If they're being chased and encounter an obstacle like this by surprise, using the Rope of Climbing isn't even a viable option.
The party will need to plan under the assumption that these items are inaccessible, and once they have a plan, they should never need to rely on the items at all. An hour is a long time in game.
A more practical alternative to attunement might be to give unattuned magic items a different cost. For example, make command words consume Hit Dice. Or have the Bag of Holding deal 1 point of damage per use. Enough to discourage without making them impossible to use in a pinch.
Edit: The Doss Lute is an interesting example of an item that can be attuned, but can also be played unattuned at the risk of psychic damage.
I think you and I are looking at this from different perspectives. I don't expect chars to carry around loads of magic items and Short Rest with some item. What I do expect is that players will have to make more decisions on what magic items to keep, and which ones to sell/give away.
I would just like to throw in the idea that magic items are supplementary to the game. They are not required to include in any campaign and their existence automatically invalidates the encounter CR calculation system in the DMG.
I personally already limit the the availability of magic items (basically stopping at rare and excluding items that require attunement unless integral to the world or story or +# weapons and armor). I excuse this by creating unique magic items for each player based on their subclass and backstory (and sometimes race) that gain features as they level up.
I will say: campaigns where there have been the "normal" amount of DMG magic items have felt just as hard to balance to not feel trivial as it does limiting them in the way I have above in my own games.
Because of all that, I think your idea would be a great system to play test. After doing what you suggested in the OP, you could reevaluate how the players feel about it and how encounters have felt (on both sides) and decide to introduce what the others have suggested here (a tiered attunement system).
If you ever get around to implementing this, I would love to know what you learned from it.
I will let you know. Right now, the 5th level char I am playing has 2 magic items, Rope of Climbing and +1 Chain Shirt. So it may be some time before this actually impacts my char. The game that I run is gearing up again mid-June, but again, the players are not weighed down with a ton of magic, so the concept is moot at the moment. Nonetheless, I will implement it.
I wouldn't personally be this strict with attunement, unless I was specifically running a low magic game. This will render a lot of items, especially those that are particularly situational, entirely obsolete..
What class of items do you think it will render obsolete?
The Driftglobe is basically just a magical lamp, except for the single-use Daylight spell. If the party knows that they will be encountering an area of magical darkness, then maybe someone would be willing to attune to it, but that would mean unattuning to something more reliably useful, like the Bag of Holding. It would be less of a burden for the Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/etc to simply prepare the spell or carry a scroll (Depending on availability).
If the players don't know the obstacles in advance, they can't reasonably justify attuning to anything that doesn't have all day value. This means that if they need to climb a wall in an emergency, they're going to have to stop, spend an hour attuning to the rope, climb, and then stop to spend another hour reattuning to their Bag of Holding, so that they can access their potions of healing in the future. If they're being chased and encounter an obstacle like this by surprise, using the Rope of Climbing isn't even a viable option.
The party will need to plan under the assumption that these items are inaccessible, and once they have a plan, they should never need to rely on the items at all. An hour is a long time in game.
A more practical alternative to attunement might be to give unattuned magic items a different cost. For example, make command words consume Hit Dice. Or have the Bag of Holding deal 1 point of damage per use. Enough to discourage without making them impossible to use in a pinch.
Edit: The Doss Lute is an interesting example of an item that can be attuned, but can also be played unattuned at the risk of psychic damage.
I think you and I are looking at this from different perspectives. I don't expect chars to carry around loads of magic items and Short Rest with some item. What I do expect is that players will have to make more decisions on what magic items to keep, and which ones to sell/give away.
I like to think my comment is perspective irrelevant.
The bottom line is, if all items require attunement, there won't be a decision about which to give away or sell, there will be a painfully obvious best choice for each character that will make objects like the Rope of Climbing a waste of space. That is, unless you never distribute enough "standard" magic items to fill those slots.
If magic items are always niche, then sure, the choice gets a little more interesting.
I have decided to tell the DM's in the games that I play in my chars will now follow this policy, and I will implement this in my own game. This does not really impact campaigns where magic is relatively scarce, but does impact campaigns where magic items are easily available.
Good luck with that, if you joined any of the games I run and told me how to run it you would be out the door as fast as you could pack your dice bag up again.
I'm curious as to how the bag of holding is affected by this. If you put a bunch of stuff in the bag of holding, and then un-attune to it to use something else later on, how does the bag work? Are the items inaccessible for as long as you are not attuned to it? If someone else attunes to it, do they get your items inside of it?
If you're attuned to it and you pass it to someone else to get something out, how does it work for them? Do they get an empty bag, or does it not open, or does it work normally if it's attuned to anybody? This could add a lot of utility in smuggling things if only the person attuned to it can get anything out.
I also second Beardsinger that you should not be going to a table and telling the DM how you're going to treat magic items. The game is the game, the rules apply to everyone the same - you can suggest it, but everyone else at the table has to buy in as well.
I have decided to tell the DM's in the games that I play in my chars will now follow this policy, and I will implement this in my own game. This does not really impact campaigns where magic is relatively scarce, but does impact campaigns where magic items are easily available.
Good luck with that, if you joined any of the games I run and told me how to run it you would be out the door as fast as you could pack your dice bag up again.
I think he is not asking the DMs to follow those restrictions, but his character will follow them anyways.
It sounds like a self limitation, not a request to implement that at the table.
I wouldn't personally be this strict with attunement, unless I was specifically running a low magic game. This will render a lot of items, especially those that are particularly situational, entirely obsolete..
What class of items do you think it will render obsolete?
The Driftglobe is basically just a magical lamp, except for the single-use Daylight spell. If the party knows that they will be encountering an area of magical darkness, then maybe someone would be willing to attune to it, but that would mean unattuning to something more reliably useful, like the Bag of Holding. It would be less of a burden for the Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/etc to simply prepare the spell or carry a scroll (Depending on availability).
If the players don't know the obstacles in advance, they can't reasonably justify attuning to anything that doesn't have all day value. This means that if they need to climb a wall in an emergency, they're going to have to stop, spend an hour attuning to the rope, climb, and then stop to spend another hour reattuning to their Bag of Holding, so that they can access their potions of healing in the future. If they're being chased and encounter an obstacle like this by surprise, using the Rope of Climbing isn't even a viable option.
The party will need to plan under the assumption that these items are inaccessible, and once they have a plan, they should never need to rely on the items at all. An hour is a long time in game.
A more practical alternative to attunement might be to give unattuned magic items a different cost. For example, make command words consume Hit Dice. Or have the Bag of Holding deal 1 point of damage per use. Enough to discourage without making them impossible to use in a pinch.
Edit: The Doss Lute is an interesting example of an item that can be attuned, but can also be played unattuned at the risk of psychic damage.
I think you and I are looking at this from different perspectives. I don't expect chars to carry around loads of magic items and Short Rest with some item. What I do expect is that players will have to make more decisions on what magic items to keep, and which ones to sell/give away.
What's the point of giving the players magic items if you expect them to just sell them or give them away? All that will lead to is player disinterest over new items which aren't obviously more powerful to what they already have.
What's the point of giving the players magic items if you expect them to just sell them or give them away? All that will lead to is player disinterest over new items which aren't obviously more powerful to what they already have.
That's another excellent point. I would far rather have a magic item sit around for several sessions before someone says "Wait a second! didn't we have that magical rope that you can make fly?", and then they rummage around in their bags, find the rope, and use it to solve the problem. The alternative being "oh, damn, I wish we had kept that magic rope. Too bad I couldn't use it alongside my shield."
I would ask the OP - what problem are you trying to solve with this? What issues have you encountered with players having several utility items?
I have decided to tell the DM's in the games that I play in my chars will now follow this policy, and I will implement this in my own game. This does not really impact campaigns where magic is relatively scarce, but does impact campaigns where magic items are easily available.
Good luck with that, if you joined any of the games I run and told me how to run it you would be out the door as fast as you could pack your dice bag up again.
Yes, agreed. I would never let one of my players just declare their magic item now requires attunement. No way no how am I upgrading bags of holding to be impossible to pickpocket, and that's upon player request - I'd be a lot more upset about a player *ordering* me to do it.
I wouldn't worry about what they say they're planning to tell their DM - all that really means is that they will choose not to attune to some items. It doesn't change any of the DM's rules and is entirely player choice.
Attunement exists to limit the number of powerful magical items that characters can have access to at any one time. But there are many magic items that are either situational, replace a mundane effect with a fun magical one, or otherwise cannot be said to justify an attunement slot. By requiring those items to have attunement, you're making no impact at low levels when there are few magic items around, and making characters get rid of them at high levels when they begin to have more.
Let's use that Driftglobe example again, and let's also give your character a Chain Shirt +1. At level 5, it makes no difference whether these items are attunement or not, since they only have 2. Your party gets used to having a Driftglobe around, which is basically not much different to casting the Light cantrip on the crest of someone's helmet.
And then at level 9, you find that you have a Driftglobe, a Chain Shirt +1, a Flametongue, Winged Boots and a Ring of Protection.
For some reason your game is now more fun if you can no longer use a Driftglobe? You'll never unattune to the other three items in preference. Effectively, the weakest of your magic items can no longer be used by the party. Back to casting Light on a helmet's crest.
If you run a campaign and want to keep the number of magic items low, then that's no problem, but forcing attunement on weak items isn't going to be the thing that does it.
Additionally, there are reasons for items like Driftglobes, Bags of Holding and other 'party boon' items to be non-attunement. They benefit the whole party; which of your players has to give up their attunement slot to carry everyone else's junk around in a Bag of Holding? What happens when everyone has 3 attunement slots (including the bag) and the bag holder finally gets a decent 3rd attunement slot item? That sounds like fun for everyone...
I have decided to tell the DM's in the games that I play in my chars will now follow this policy, and I will implement this in my own game. This does not really impact campaigns where magic is relatively scarce, but does impact campaigns where magic items are easily available.
Good luck with that, if you joined any of the games I run and told me how to run it you would be out the door as fast as you could pack your dice bag up again.
I said my char will follow this policy, plus any game I DM. I am self-limiting how I play in other games, not demanding the DM apply my views. I have also told the DM where I play a Scout Rogue that I will not use anything from the abomination that shall not be named, and I have decided that my Rogue will not be able to Hide from a target, then Attack with Advantage on the same turn. I will of course still Attack, then try to Hide, on the same turn.
So if a DM decides that my ideas are worthy, great. He really liked one idea I had about enhancing Sleet Storm with a Survival check and it is now part of the game. But each DM decides what is allowed in his game.
I enjoy a game with challenges I believe that many of the magic items out there, as I described. need attunement. If the item creates some kind of mental connection with the player, then it needs attunement. This also creates more tradeoffs and decisions by a player in games were magic items are plentiful. D&D is not supposed to be easy.
I have decided to tell the DM's in the games that I play in my chars will now follow this policy, and I will implement this in my own game. This does not really impact campaigns where magic is relatively scarce, but does impact campaigns where magic items are easily available.
Good luck with that, if you joined any of the games I run and told me how to run it you would be out the door as fast as you could pack your dice bag up again.
I said my char will follow this policy, plus any game I DM. I am self-limiting how I play in other games, not demanding the DM apply my views. I have also told the DM where I play a Scout Rogue that I will not use anything from the abomination that shall not be named, and I have decided that my Rogue will not be able to Hide from a target, then Attack with Advantage on the same turn. I will of course still Attack, then try to Hide, on the same turn.
So if a DM decides that my ideas are worthy, great. He really liked one idea I had about enhancing Sleet Storm with a Survival check and it is now part of the game. But each DM decides what is allowed in his game.
I enjoy a game with challenges I believe that many of the magic items out there, as I described. need attunement. If the item creates some kind of mental connection with the player, then it needs attunement. This also creates more tradeoffs and decisions by a player in games were magic items are plentiful. D&D is not supposed to be easy.
Ultimately it's all up to you and if this makes the game more fun for you then that's fine. But as I stated above, the only impact that this will have is that when you have 4 magic items, some of which you have decided require attunement when they don't, you'll just be actively choosing not to use those items.
You'll also have to consider handing non-attunement items over to other players in the group who aren't following your personal philosophy. That Driftglobe will just go to another player who can 'attune' to it (e.g. they choose that they don't have to), so won't you just end up having to hand items over to other players?
Additionally, there are reasons for items like Driftglobes, Bags of Holding and other 'party boon' items to be non-attunement. They benefit the whole party; which of your players has to give up their attunement slot to carry everyone else's junk around in a Bag of Holding? What happens when everyone has 3 attunement slots (including the bag) and the bag holder finally gets a decent 3rd attunement slot item? That sounds like fun for everyone...
There is no doubt that some items are indeed "party boons". But as I said, everything should have to be considered as a tradeoff. When someone builds a char, they make tradeoffs when deciding how to allocate ability points. Every time an level is reached when an ASI is given, a player has to make a tradeoffs.
By making more items need attunement, this creates more tradeoffs. Does it make the game more challenging? Absolutely. But my belief that D&D should be hard, and hard does not mean "not fun". That belief is unshakable.
And in the specific, Bag of Holding would indeed require Attunement, as the user can think of an item and be able to find it in 64 cu feet with an Action. Now, if a player Unattunes, with the Bag full of stuff, that leads to some interesting situations. I have not played those out, but one that comes to mind is that there is a percentage chance the Bag splits open and all the stuff spills on the ground, or perhaps all the stuff is lost forever. As a DM, I can do what I want re-crafting how that works. As a player in someone else's game, it is real simple. I have given up an Attunement slot for my char, and my char alone. If I pass it off to some other player, that player and/or DMcan make the decision on what happens, which is mostly likely, nothing at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have decided to tell the DM's in the games that I play in my chars will now follow this policy, and I will implement this in my own game. This does not really impact campaigns where magic is relatively scarce, but does impact campaigns where magic items are easily available.
If a Magic Item:
Source books says it requires Attunement: It requires Attunement
Has a Command Word: It requires Attunement
Alters/enhances a players mental or physical abilities in some manner: It requires Attunement
Creates some symbiotic relationship with the player: It requires Attunement
Some examples affected by this policy:
Driftglobe or Rope of Climbing: Command Word:
Periapt of Health, Sentinel Shield, Goggles of Night: Affects the individual physically or mentally
Bag of Holding: Allowing a char to rummage through a 64 cu foot bag and find something in one action = symbiotic mental relationship, and operates like Heward's Handy Haversack, which requires attunement already.
"Standard vanilla" magic weapons and armour are not impacted, but those with special abilities will most likely require attunement.
:
Are you looking for any particular feedback here, or just sharing with the world?
Since this is a self-imposed restriction, more power to you. If your players enjoy it, mazel tov.
I wouldn't personally be this strict with attunement, unless I was specifically running a low magic game. This will render a lot of items, especially those that are particularly situational, entirely obsolete. However, if the Attunement process were reduced to, say, 10 minutes, then I'd find it less concerning. Long enough to make impractical in a tense moment, but short enough to swap out the Rope for the Globe without significantly stalling the whole party.
So maybe an "Attunement Tier" system would be fun to play with. "Major" items could require a Long Rest, "Standard" items would require 1 hour, and "Minor" items would require 10 minutes.
I mean if you want to nerf and restrict your character that's on you. But as a DM I would not impose it on other characters, so don't complain to me if they're using more items than you.
The Handy Haversack actually doesn't require attunement.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
What class of items do you think it will render obsolete?
The examples you used of the Driftglobe and Rope of Climbing were what I had in mind.
The Driftglobe is basically just a magical lamp, except for the single-use Daylight spell. If the party knows that they will be encountering an area of magical darkness, then maybe someone would be willing to attune to it, but that would mean unattuning to something more reliably useful, like the Bag of Holding. It would be less of a burden for the Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/etc to simply prepare the spell or carry a scroll (Depending on availability).
If the players don't know the obstacles in advance, they can't reasonably justify attuning to anything that doesn't have all day value. This means that if they need to climb a wall in an emergency, they're going to have to stop, spend an hour attuning to the rope, climb, and then stop to spend another hour reattuning to their Bag of Holding, so that they can access their potions of healing in the future. If they're being chased and encounter an obstacle like this by surprise, using the Rope of Climbing isn't even a viable option.
The party will need to plan under the assumption that these items are inaccessible, and once they have a plan, they should never need to rely on the items at all. An hour is a long time in game.
A more practical alternative to attunement might be to give unattuned magic items a different cost. For example, make command words consume Hit Dice. Or have the Bag of Holding deal 1 point of damage per use. Enough to discourage without making them impossible to use in a pinch.
Edit: The Doss Lute is an interesting example of an item that can be attuned, but can also be played unattuned at the risk of psychic damage.
I think you and I are looking at this from different perspectives. I don't expect chars to carry around loads of magic items and Short Rest with some item. What I do expect is that players will have to make more decisions on what magic items to keep, and which ones to sell/give away.
I will let you know. Right now, the 5th level char I am playing has 2 magic items, Rope of Climbing and +1 Chain Shirt. So it may be some time before this actually impacts my char. The game that I run is gearing up again mid-June, but again, the players are not weighed down with a ton of magic, so the concept is moot at the moment. Nonetheless, I will implement it.
I like to think my comment is perspective irrelevant.
The bottom line is, if all items require attunement, there won't be a decision about which to give away or sell, there will be a painfully obvious best choice for each character that will make objects like the Rope of Climbing a waste of space. That is, unless you never distribute enough "standard" magic items to fill those slots.
If magic items are always niche, then sure, the choice gets a little more interesting.
Good luck with that, if you joined any of the games I run and told me how to run it you would be out the door as fast as you could pack your dice bag up again.
I'm curious as to how the bag of holding is affected by this. If you put a bunch of stuff in the bag of holding, and then un-attune to it to use something else later on, how does the bag work? Are the items inaccessible for as long as you are not attuned to it? If someone else attunes to it, do they get your items inside of it?
If you're attuned to it and you pass it to someone else to get something out, how does it work for them? Do they get an empty bag, or does it not open, or does it work normally if it's attuned to anybody? This could add a lot of utility in smuggling things if only the person attuned to it can get anything out.
I also second Beardsinger that you should not be going to a table and telling the DM how you're going to treat magic items. The game is the game, the rules apply to everyone the same - you can suggest it, but everyone else at the table has to buy in as well.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I think he is not asking the DMs to follow those restrictions, but his character will follow them anyways.
It sounds like a self limitation, not a request to implement that at the table.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
What's the point of giving the players magic items if you expect them to just sell them or give them away? All that will lead to is player disinterest over new items which aren't obviously more powerful to what they already have.
That's another excellent point. I would far rather have a magic item sit around for several sessions before someone says "Wait a second! didn't we have that magical rope that you can make fly?", and then they rummage around in their bags, find the rope, and use it to solve the problem. The alternative being "oh, damn, I wish we had kept that magic rope. Too bad I couldn't use it alongside my shield."
I would ask the OP - what problem are you trying to solve with this? What issues have you encountered with players having several utility items?
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Yes, agreed. I would never let one of my players just declare their magic item now requires attunement. No way no how am I upgrading bags of holding to be impossible to pickpocket, and that's upon player request - I'd be a lot more upset about a player *ordering* me to do it.
I wouldn't worry about what they say they're planning to tell their DM - all that really means is that they will choose not to attune to some items. It doesn't change any of the DM's rules and is entirely player choice.
Attunement exists to limit the number of powerful magical items that characters can have access to at any one time. But there are many magic items that are either situational, replace a mundane effect with a fun magical one, or otherwise cannot be said to justify an attunement slot. By requiring those items to have attunement, you're making no impact at low levels when there are few magic items around, and making characters get rid of them at high levels when they begin to have more.
Let's use that Driftglobe example again, and let's also give your character a Chain Shirt +1. At level 5, it makes no difference whether these items are attunement or not, since they only have 2. Your party gets used to having a Driftglobe around, which is basically not much different to casting the Light cantrip on the crest of someone's helmet.
And then at level 9, you find that you have a Driftglobe, a Chain Shirt +1, a Flametongue, Winged Boots and a Ring of Protection.
For some reason your game is now more fun if you can no longer use a Driftglobe? You'll never unattune to the other three items in preference. Effectively, the weakest of your magic items can no longer be used by the party. Back to casting Light on a helmet's crest.
If you run a campaign and want to keep the number of magic items low, then that's no problem, but forcing attunement on weak items isn't going to be the thing that does it.
Additionally, there are reasons for items like Driftglobes, Bags of Holding and other 'party boon' items to be non-attunement. They benefit the whole party; which of your players has to give up their attunement slot to carry everyone else's junk around in a Bag of Holding? What happens when everyone has 3 attunement slots (including the bag) and the bag holder finally gets a decent 3rd attunement slot item? That sounds like fun for everyone...
I said my char will follow this policy, plus any game I DM. I am self-limiting how I play in other games, not demanding the DM apply my views. I have also told the DM where I play a Scout Rogue that I will not use anything from the abomination that shall not be named, and I have decided that my Rogue will not be able to Hide from a target, then Attack with Advantage on the same turn. I will of course still Attack, then try to Hide, on the same turn.
So if a DM decides that my ideas are worthy, great. He really liked one idea I had about enhancing Sleet Storm with a Survival check and it is now part of the game. But each DM decides what is allowed in his game.
I enjoy a game with challenges I believe that many of the magic items out there, as I described. need attunement. If the item creates some kind of mental connection with the player, then it needs attunement. This also creates more tradeoffs and decisions by a player in games were magic items are plentiful. D&D is not supposed to be easy.
Ultimately it's all up to you and if this makes the game more fun for you then that's fine. But as I stated above, the only impact that this will have is that when you have 4 magic items, some of which you have decided require attunement when they don't, you'll just be actively choosing not to use those items.
You'll also have to consider handing non-attunement items over to other players in the group who aren't following your personal philosophy. That Driftglobe will just go to another player who can 'attune' to it (e.g. they choose that they don't have to), so won't you just end up having to hand items over to other players?
There is no doubt that some items are indeed "party boons". But as I said, everything should have to be considered as a tradeoff. When someone builds a char, they make tradeoffs when deciding how to allocate ability points. Every time an level is reached when an ASI is given, a player has to make a tradeoffs.
By making more items need attunement, this creates more tradeoffs. Does it make the game more challenging? Absolutely. But my belief that D&D should be hard, and hard does not mean "not fun". That belief is unshakable.
And in the specific, Bag of Holding would indeed require Attunement, as the user can think of an item and be able to find it in 64 cu feet with an Action. Now, if a player Unattunes, with the Bag full of stuff, that leads to some interesting situations. I have not played those out, but one that comes to mind is that there is a percentage chance the Bag splits open and all the stuff spills on the ground, or perhaps all the stuff is lost forever. As a DM, I can do what I want re-crafting how that works. As a player in someone else's game, it is real simple. I have given up an Attunement slot for my char, and my char alone. If I pass it off to some other player, that player and/or DMcan make the decision on what happens, which is mostly likely, nothing at all.