My session is tomorrow and they'll be finding (maybe?) a homebrew magic item that's just a hood that gives advantage on intimidation checks. I wasn't sure, if something like that should be attunement or not? Whatcha think?
The purpose of attunement is to limit the number of very-effective magic items the party can use simultaneously. It forces them to choose between X or Y.
For something like advantage on intimidation checks, then, it'll be up to you? Do you want someone in the party to perma-have it forever from now until the end of the game (unless they find a better hood), in addition to whatever other magic items they may have? If so, no attunement. If you don't want them to always have unfettered access to it, make it attuneable. That's from a mechanical perspective.
From a thematic perspective, thinking about how the hood actually works, and what it is doing, knowing nothing about its provenance or world lore but only what you have told us, IMO, this item is something that should have to be attuned. Not because of its power, but because wearing it turns you into Batman (he puts on the cowl, lowers his voice, says, "I'M BATMAN!" and criminals run in fear). I would think that just "wearing" it is not sufficient. You'd have to "become" Batman, as it were, for "I'M BATMAN" to work. Otherwise people will just laugh at you if you try it. To "become" Batman - to get into his mindset, project the scariness, etc. -- that seems to me like it would require attunement.
On the other hand maybe putting the hood on just makes you look 2' taller to everyone around you. Then it would not need attunement. So it depends on what the item is like, thematically. IMO that is more important than the mechanics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I would require attunement, but I run a game where advantage on intimidation checks would be disproportionately powerful. If you’re running one of WotC’s published adventures, it’s probably not powerful enough to require attunement.
I find as a DM that it is better to start out the harsher way and see how things go. If you change your mind your player will be happy. Doing it the other way around makes them unhappy. Start out with it requiring Attunement. You can always remove the requirement later.
In the same line as everyone else: I agree that it shouldn't require attunement, so long as your campaign is not particularly susceptible to Intimidation.
A good trick for giving yourself an "out" is to describe the item in a way that implies fragility, without outright saying it. For example, if each time the player uses the cloak, the edges fray or smolder, then it's reasonable to assume that each use slightly damages the item. If it becomes a problem, then you can describe the cumulative effects of this damage, and if not, then it's just flavor, and the damage never actually progresses.
I have just given the party their first +1 sword, it requires attunement. I might, when the party gains in power, have that attribute become obsolete. I have in the past had attunement on items be linked to the “power” of the character, so at a certain level it no longer requires attunement.
Keep in mind that no attunement means that any member of the party can throw it on for the benefit in that moment. If you're okay with that, then no need for attunement IMO. It's not that different from Boots of Elvenkind, which does not require attunement.
Easy straight-forward question today!
My session is tomorrow and they'll be finding (maybe?) a homebrew magic item that's just a hood that gives advantage on intimidation checks. I wasn't sure, if something like that should be attunement or not? Whatcha think?
The party is at level 4 if that matters
non-attument is fine given the power level of the magic item.
The purpose of attunement is to limit the number of very-effective magic items the party can use simultaneously. It forces them to choose between X or Y.
For something like advantage on intimidation checks, then, it'll be up to you? Do you want someone in the party to perma-have it forever from now until the end of the game (unless they find a better hood), in addition to whatever other magic items they may have? If so, no attunement. If you don't want them to always have unfettered access to it, make it attuneable. That's from a mechanical perspective.
From a thematic perspective, thinking about how the hood actually works, and what it is doing, knowing nothing about its provenance or world lore but only what you have told us, IMO, this item is something that should have to be attuned. Not because of its power, but because wearing it turns you into Batman (he puts on the cowl, lowers his voice, says, "I'M BATMAN!" and criminals run in fear). I would think that just "wearing" it is not sufficient. You'd have to "become" Batman, as it were, for "I'M BATMAN" to work. Otherwise people will just laugh at you if you try it. To "become" Batman - to get into his mindset, project the scariness, etc. -- that seems to me like it would require attunement.
On the other hand maybe putting the hood on just makes you look 2' taller to everyone around you. Then it would not need attunement. So it depends on what the item is like, thematically. IMO that is more important than the mechanics.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I would require attunement, but I run a game where advantage on intimidation checks would be disproportionately powerful. If you’re running one of WotC’s published adventures, it’s probably not powerful enough to require attunement.
I find as a DM that it is better to start out the harsher way and see how things go. If you change your mind your player will be happy. Doing it the other way around makes them unhappy. Start out with it requiring Attunement. You can always remove the requirement later.
<Insert clever signature here>
In the same line as everyone else: I agree that it shouldn't require attunement, so long as your campaign is not particularly susceptible to Intimidation.
A good trick for giving yourself an "out" is to describe the item in a way that implies fragility, without outright saying it. For example, if each time the player uses the cloak, the edges fray or smolder, then it's reasonable to assume that each use slightly damages the item. If it becomes a problem, then you can describe the cumulative effects of this damage, and if not, then it's just flavor, and the damage never actually progresses.
I have just given the party their first +1 sword, it requires attunement. I might, when the party gains in power, have that attribute become obsolete. I have in the past had attunement on items be linked to the “power” of the character, so at a certain level it no longer requires attunement.
Keep in mind that no attunement means that any member of the party can throw it on for the benefit in that moment. If you're okay with that, then no need for attunement IMO. It's not that different from Boots of Elvenkind, which does not require attunement.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm