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.
Your fun can't be wrong, fun is fun.
I am still curious about the bag of holding though. What if someone else asks you to get something out of it?
I feel like the logical answer is that you can still use it, but have to spend time trying to find whatever is in it. The mechanics of searching aside, just saying you need to spend time looking through it is probably the most seamless way to make it work for you. That way you can still put stuff in and take it out, but to get the 1action = grab what you're thinking aspect you would need to attune to it.
I will be honest that I don't see the logic of command word items needing attunement. Anyone nearby can give the command word and make them work, so it seems odd to cancel that off as needing attunement. How would you integrate this with, say, a magic door that requires a command word to open? Would you need to be attuned to the door?
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?
You are correct. I would like other players in other DM''s games to follow my philosophy, but I can't force it on them.
My 5th level char presently has 2 Magic Items: Mithral Chain Shirt and a Rope of Climbing, so my entire philosophy is moot at the moment. Though I did provide the DM with the 2 command words for the Rope, and the other players have heard me use them. I carry the Rope, I am the one that sets it up, though all the players will climb with it.
As an interesting aside, the DM did provide the group with a Drift Globe, which the Bard Identified. The group is all Halfings and Humans, so you would think said light source would be a real help to the group, Yet no one has used it. My Scout Rogue will certainly not use it when scouting.
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.
Your fun can't be wrong, fun is fun.
I am still curious about the bag of holding though. What if someone else asks you to get something out of it?
I feel like the logical answer is that you can still use it, but have to spend time trying to find whatever is in it. The mechanics of searching aside, just saying you need to spend time looking through it is probably the most seamless way to make it work for you. That way you can still put stuff in and take it out, but to get the 1action = grab what you're thinking aspect you would need to attune to it.
I will be honest that I don't see the logic of command word items needing attunement. Anyone nearby can give the command word and make them work, so it seems odd to cancel that off as needing attunement. How would you integrate this with, say, a magic door that requires a command word to open? Would you need to be attuned to the door?
Well, with the specifics of the Bag of Holding, the players in my game don't have one (I hate the things as they eliminate encumbrance so easily), and I think that in the games that I currently play in only one player has a Bag, and it is not my char.
There are multiple ways to handle the mechanics of an Unattuned Bag, and each can lead to interesting ideas. As you suggested, can an unattuned Bag still hold 64 cu feet, but finding something takes quite a while (trust me, when I am looking for a roll of tape in my hockey bag, which is maybe just 16 cu feet, it takes a lot longer than 6 seconds). Or does it lose all magical properties? I can visualize for my game modifying the Bag so it is simply a big hole that does not require attunement, but finding stuff is a lot harder (as described above). As a DM, I can do anything, create any magic item.
As for the Command Word issue, look at it this way. Consider the item is "listening for a command". I am not saying it is sentient, but I am saying that to communicate with it does require a mental connection, hence attunement, and only one person at a time can Command it. As for magical door, well DM Fiat. A door can operate any way a DM wants.
As for the Command Word issue, look at it this way. Consider the item is "listening for a command". I am not saying it is sentient, but I am saying that to communicate with it does require a mental connection, hence attunement, and only one person at a time can Command it. As for magical door, well DM Fiat. A door can operate any way a DM wants.
I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of modern-day voice activated stuff. I can walk into a strangers home and say "Okay Google, play Bananrama on Spotify" and Google will add bananas to the shopping list just fine.
As for the Command Word issue, look at it this way. Consider the item is "listening for a command". I am not saying it is sentient, but I am saying that to communicate with it does require a mental connection, hence attunement, and only one person at a time can Command it. As for magical door, well DM Fiat. A door can operate any way a DM wants.
I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of modern-day voice activated stuff. I can walk into a strangers home and say "Okay Google, play Bananrama on Spotify" and Google will add bananas to the shopping list just fine.
LOL...true enough. But there is nothing stopping someone from buying some item, if not today, but soon, that is attuned to their voice. I am fairly certain even your basic homebuyer can install voice activated door locks. But the modern world ain't D&D.
As an interesting aside, the DM did provide the group with a Drift Globe, which the Bard Identified. The group is all Halfings and Humans, so you would think said light source would be a real help to the group, Yet no one has used it. My Scout Rogue will certainly not use it when scouting.
So really what you're saying is that in the future of the campaign that you're playing in, if you gain four new items which are a mixture of items that require Attunement and items that don't, but you think they should, you will choose not to use one of the newly acquired four items.
As a DM, if my player told me that they are going to implement their own attunement rules for their character, I would tell them the following:
The item you're thinking about does not require attunement. Your character cannot claim that it does, indicate that it does, or otherwise act like it does, anymore than they may claim that the Longsword +1 they're holding is a Battleaxe +1. The fact of the world you're in does not change around your character's belief. However, you may choose to use items however you wish within the rules of the world that I've created. Your character will always know that they could use the item without attuning to it, and if you play as though they believe they do need to attune then itwill have to be considered a delusion that your character is under.
For your own campaign, knock yourself out with any house rules and item changes that you want. I changed Cube of Force to only regain 1d6 charges per day rather than 1d20. No problem! But you can't change the facts of your DM's world.
As an interesting aside, the DM did provide the group with a Drift Globe, which the Bard Identified. The group is all Halfings and Humans, so you would think said light source would be a real help to the group, Yet no one has used it. My Scout Rogue will certainly not use it when scouting.
So really what you're saying is that in the future of the campaign that you're playing in, if you gain four new items which are a mixture of items that require Attunement and items that don't, but you think they should, you will choose not to use one of the newly acquired four items.
As a DM, if my player told me that they are going to implement their own attunement rules for their character, I would tell them the following:
The item you're thinking about does not require attunement. Your character cannot claim that it does, indicate that it does, or otherwise act like it does, anymore than they may claim that the Longsword +1 they're holding is a Battleaxe +1. The fact of the world you're in does not change around your character's belief. However, you may choose to use items however you wish within the rules of the world that I've created. Your character will always know that they could use the item without attuning to it, and if you play as though they believe they do need to attune then itwill have to be considered a delusion that your character is under.
For your own campaign, knock yourself out with any house rules and item changes that you want. I changed Cube of Force to only regain 1d6 charges per day rather than 1d20. No problem! But you can't change the facts of your DM's world.
Shrug....the DM in the games that I play in can phrase it any way they like. I will follow my code, as it has no impact on the other players, nor on the DM's world, outside of my char, which it will impact my char, eventually. I think the game should be more challenging, and I believe that it makes it more immersive when attunement is applied in the categories I detailed.
I understand the desire to foster situations where there are tradeoffs and meaningful decisions, and I will support mechanics that do that.
Does this do that though? I'll just use an example that's already been thrown out:
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.
This does not pose a meaningful decision or create tension by forcing a tradeoff. The Driftglobe is objectively the worst item of the three. Coincidentally, that's why it does not require attunement in the first place - so it is not rendered entirely obsolete as you accumulate more items.
After playing in a high level, high magic campaign, I was pleasantly surprised to find that attunement limits worked extremely well as written. We had unlimited access to uncommons that do not require attunement and I don't think it ever mattered. We never won an encounter with a driftglobe, or even with 10 of them. There were plenty of decisions and item-swapping and reluctant mothballing of items without any changes needed.
You do you, of course. But for me this particular system is working fine. And if it wasn't, I'd probably just reduce attunement slots to 2 instead of trying to set up a bunch of rules for what else should require attunement.
I'm a fan of requiring a common pool of "innate charges" as an Attunement variant. Probably never going to use it, but I like it in principle.
Burn a charge to activate a magic item and it functions for its specified duration, or 1 minute, if unspecified and not instantaneous. So, magic sword or armor, burn 1 charge each per combat. Wand of magic missile, burn a charge to use as normal for 1 minute. Etc...
The player could have Proficiency bonus charges per short rest, so they will probably get to use their attuned items without hassle, but if they go somewhere unusual, they may need to forgo magic armor, so that they can ensure magic damage, or use of some other accessory.
Though, regardless of variant, without support from DNDBeyond, management gets inconvenient.
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 agree. Your actions would impact the rest of the party, by causing you to give away/sell items based on your arbitrary decisions on how magic works in that world. As a player, I would not want this from the other players in the party unless we all agreed to it.
As an interesting aside, the DM did provide the group with a Drift Globe, which the Bard Identified. The group is all Halfings and Humans, so you would think said light source would be a real help to the group, Yet no one has used it. My Scout Rogue will certainly not use it when scouting.
So really what you're saying is that in the future of the campaign that you're playing in, if you gain four new items which are a mixture of items that require Attunement and items that don't, but you think they should, you will choose not to use one of the newly acquired four items.
As a DM, if my player told me that they are going to implement their own attunement rules for their character, I would tell them the following:
The item you're thinking about does not require attunement. Your character cannot claim that it does, indicate that it does, or otherwise act like it does, anymore than they may claim that the Longsword +1 they're holding is a Battleaxe +1. The fact of the world you're in does not change around your character's belief. However, you may choose to use items however you wish within the rules of the world that I've created. Your character will always know that they could use the item without attuning to it, and if you play as though they believe they do need to attune then itwill have to be considered a delusion that your character is under.
For your own campaign, knock yourself out with any house rules and item changes that you want. I changed Cube of Force to only regain 1d6 charges per day rather than 1d20. No problem! But you can't change the facts of your DM's world.
Shrug....the DM in the games that I play in can phrase it any way they like. I will follow my code, as it has no impact on the other players, nor on the DM's world, outside of my char, which it will impact my char, eventually. I think the game should be more challenging, and I believe that it makes it more immersive when attunement is applied in the categories I detailed.
Wow. That would get you booted from any game I ran, quickly. Basically, your philosophy is "this is how I play D&D, so the work you put in as a DM is meaningless where it disagrees with my notions, so I can ignore it".
Combine that with your favorite rant of "Another player is cheating" and we begin to see an interesting dichotomy...
Shrug....the DM in the games that I play in can phrase it any way they like. I will follow my code, as it has no impact on the other players, nor on the DM's world, outside of my char, which it will impact my char, eventually. I think the game should be more challenging, and I believe that it makes it more immersive when attunement is applied in the categories I detailed.
I would posit that this would only make the game more challenging if all the players in the game (and of course the DM) buy into it.
Taking the statement "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.", in a game where only you will be using these rules? The driftglobe will be given to another character, and there will be no change except that it wasn't you using it. If you decide not to pass it on and instead sell it, animosity will probably brew within the party.
Now if we keep going - you continue to get a variety of ordinarily non-attunement items as you play - you will find yourself in a position where the items are still in the party, being used by other players who aren't using this rule, and your assertation that it will make the game more challenging is not going to be true - it will simply find your character stood on the sidelines more often than not, whilst the other players use their plethora of magical items that your character can, inexplicably, not use.
I do agree that your idea would lead to a reduced amount of take-all-comers solutions in late-level parties, and allow for more magic items to be offered without risk of the party just having a hundred different trinkets to pull out at any given time, but I also think it needs total player buy-in to have any effect on the difficulty of the game; otherwise, it'll just make you feel more and more excluded as the other players gain more and more utility, and you're stuck with just a couple of magic items.
As an interesting aside, the DM did provide the group with a Drift Globe, which the Bard Identified. The group is all Halfings and Humans, so you would think said light source would be a real help to the group, Yet no one has used it. My Scout Rogue will certainly not use it when scouting.
So really what you're saying is that in the future of the campaign that you're playing in, if you gain four new items which are a mixture of items that require Attunement and items that don't, but you think they should, you will choose not to use one of the newly acquired four items.
As a DM, if my player told me that they are going to implement their own attunement rules for their character, I would tell them the following:
The item you're thinking about does not require attunement. Your character cannot claim that it does, indicate that it does, or otherwise act like it does, anymore than they may claim that the Longsword +1 they're holding is a Battleaxe +1. The fact of the world you're in does not change around your character's belief. However, you may choose to use items however you wish within the rules of the world that I've created. Your character will always know that they could use the item without attuning to it, and if you play as though they believe they do need to attune then itwill have to be considered a delusion that your character is under.
For your own campaign, knock yourself out with any house rules and item changes that you want. I changed Cube of Force to only regain 1d6 charges per day rather than 1d20. No problem! But you can't change the facts of your DM's world.
Shrug....the DM in the games that I play in can phrase it any way they like. I will follow my code, as it has no impact on the other players, nor on the DM's world, outside of my char, which it will impact my char, eventually. I think the game should be more challenging, and I believe that it makes it more immersive when attunement is applied in the categories I detailed.
In terms of the game being more challenging, you have no idea how challenging the game is going to be, and you can do nothing to control it. Nor should you try. That is the DM's job. If you feel that the game is not challenging enough, talk to your DM. Honestly though since by level 5 you don't even have a +1 weapon and only a couple of weak items, it hardly seems like the DM is tossing out magic items like candy.
Often the DM will not know how challenging the game is going to be either. Today I am about to run my party of six level 7 characters against a Fire Giant and a level 10 Forge Cleric who has legendary actions. I have no idea how that encounter will pan out - it could be overwhelmingly hard if the cleric's Wall of Fire cuts the party in half (or worse leaves one of them alone with the fire giant) or it could be a whiff if the cleric rolls a 1 on initiative, gets critted by a level 4 Guiding Bolt and then the Blood Hunter crossbowman puts 2 x 20 damage bolts into him and they drop him in a single round.
Maybe you could have some kind of roleplay element for your individual character such as the presence of too much magic nearby causes them splitting headaches. That would allow you to do the thing that you are actually able to do - play your character - in the way that you want to play them, without introducing your own house rules.
Your fun can't be wrong, fun is fun.
I am still curious about the bag of holding though. What if someone else asks you to get something out of it?
I feel like the logical answer is that you can still use it, but have to spend time trying to find whatever is in it. The mechanics of searching aside, just saying you need to spend time looking through it is probably the most seamless way to make it work for you. That way you can still put stuff in and take it out, but to get the 1action = grab what you're thinking aspect you would need to attune to it.
I will be honest that I don't see the logic of command word items needing attunement. Anyone nearby can give the command word and make them work, so it seems odd to cancel that off as needing attunement. How would you integrate this with, say, a magic door that requires a command word to open? Would you need to be attuned to the door?
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!
You are correct. I would like other players in other DM''s games to follow my philosophy, but I can't force it on them.
My 5th level char presently has 2 Magic Items: Mithral Chain Shirt and a Rope of Climbing, so my entire philosophy is moot at the moment. Though I did provide the DM with the 2 command words for the Rope, and the other players have heard me use them. I carry the Rope, I am the one that sets it up, though all the players will climb with it.
As an interesting aside, the DM did provide the group with a Drift Globe, which the Bard Identified. The group is all Halfings and Humans, so you would think said light source would be a real help to the group, Yet no one has used it. My Scout Rogue will certainly not use it when scouting.
Well, with the specifics of the Bag of Holding, the players in my game don't have one (I hate the things as they eliminate encumbrance so easily), and I think that in the games that I currently play in only one player has a Bag, and it is not my char.
There are multiple ways to handle the mechanics of an Unattuned Bag, and each can lead to interesting ideas. As you suggested, can an unattuned Bag still hold 64 cu feet, but finding something takes quite a while (trust me, when I am looking for a roll of tape in my hockey bag, which is maybe just 16 cu feet, it takes a lot longer than 6 seconds). Or does it lose all magical properties? I can visualize for my game modifying the Bag so it is simply a big hole that does not require attunement, but finding stuff is a lot harder (as described above). As a DM, I can do anything, create any magic item.
As for the Command Word issue, look at it this way. Consider the item is "listening for a command". I am not saying it is sentient, but I am saying that to communicate with it does require a mental connection, hence attunement, and only one person at a time can Command it. As for magical door, well DM Fiat. A door can operate any way a DM wants.
I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of modern-day voice activated stuff. I can walk into a strangers home and say "Okay Google, play Bananrama on Spotify" and Google will add bananas to the shopping list just fine.
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!
LOL...true enough. But there is nothing stopping someone from buying some item, if not today, but soon, that is attuned to their voice. I am fairly certain even your basic homebuyer can install voice activated door locks. But the modern world ain't D&D.
So really what you're saying is that in the future of the campaign that you're playing in, if you gain four new items which are a mixture of items that require Attunement and items that don't, but you think they should, you will choose not to use one of the newly acquired four items.
As a DM, if my player told me that they are going to implement their own attunement rules for their character, I would tell them the following:
The item you're thinking about does not require attunement. Your character cannot claim that it does, indicate that it does, or otherwise act like it does, anymore than they may claim that the Longsword +1 they're holding is a Battleaxe +1. The fact of the world you're in does not change around your character's belief. However, you may choose to use items however you wish within the rules of the world that I've created. Your character will always know that they could use the item without attuning to it, and if you play as though they believe they do need to attune then it will have to be considered a delusion that your character is under.
For your own campaign, knock yourself out with any house rules and item changes that you want. I changed Cube of Force to only regain 1d6 charges per day rather than 1d20. No problem! But you can't change the facts of your DM's world.
Shrug....the DM in the games that I play in can phrase it any way they like. I will follow my code, as it has no impact on the other players, nor on the DM's world, outside of my char, which it will impact my char, eventually. I think the game should be more challenging, and I believe that it makes it more immersive when attunement is applied in the categories I detailed.
I understand the desire to foster situations where there are tradeoffs and meaningful decisions, and I will support mechanics that do that.
Does this do that though? I'll just use an example that's already been thrown out:
This does not pose a meaningful decision or create tension by forcing a tradeoff. The Driftglobe is objectively the worst item of the three. Coincidentally, that's why it does not require attunement in the first place - so it is not rendered entirely obsolete as you accumulate more items.
After playing in a high level, high magic campaign, I was pleasantly surprised to find that attunement limits worked extremely well as written. We had unlimited access to uncommons that do not require attunement and I don't think it ever mattered. We never won an encounter with a driftglobe, or even with 10 of them. There were plenty of decisions and item-swapping and reluctant mothballing of items without any changes needed.
You do you, of course. But for me this particular system is working fine. And if it wasn't, I'd probably just reduce attunement slots to 2 instead of trying to set up a bunch of rules for what else should 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
I'm a fan of requiring a common pool of "innate charges" as an Attunement variant. Probably never going to use it, but I like it in principle.
Burn a charge to activate a magic item and it functions for its specified duration, or 1 minute, if unspecified and not instantaneous. So, magic sword or armor, burn 1 charge each per combat. Wand of magic missile, burn a charge to use as normal for 1 minute. Etc...
The player could have Proficiency bonus charges per short rest, so they will probably get to use their attuned items without hassle, but if they go somewhere unusual, they may need to forgo magic armor, so that they can ensure magic damage, or use of some other accessory.
Though, regardless of variant, without support from DNDBeyond, management gets inconvenient.
I agree. Your actions would impact the rest of the party, by causing you to give away/sell items based on your arbitrary decisions on how magic works in that world. As a player, I would not want this from the other players in the party unless we all agreed to it.
Wow. That would get you booted from any game I ran, quickly. Basically, your philosophy is "this is how I play D&D, so the work you put in as a DM is meaningless where it disagrees with my notions, so I can ignore it".
Combine that with your favorite rant of "Another player is cheating" and we begin to see an interesting dichotomy...
I would posit that this would only make the game more challenging if all the players in the game (and of course the DM) buy into it.
Taking the statement "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.", in a game where only you will be using these rules? The driftglobe will be given to another character, and there will be no change except that it wasn't you using it. If you decide not to pass it on and instead sell it, animosity will probably brew within the party.
Now if we keep going - you continue to get a variety of ordinarily non-attunement items as you play - you will find yourself in a position where the items are still in the party, being used by other players who aren't using this rule, and your assertation that it will make the game more challenging is not going to be true - it will simply find your character stood on the sidelines more often than not, whilst the other players use their plethora of magical items that your character can, inexplicably, not use.
I do agree that your idea would lead to a reduced amount of take-all-comers solutions in late-level parties, and allow for more magic items to be offered without risk of the party just having a hundred different trinkets to pull out at any given time, but I also think it needs total player buy-in to have any effect on the difficulty of the game; otherwise, it'll just make you feel more and more excluded as the other players gain more and more utility, and you're stuck with just a couple of magic 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!
In terms of the game being more challenging, you have no idea how challenging the game is going to be, and you can do nothing to control it. Nor should you try. That is the DM's job. If you feel that the game is not challenging enough, talk to your DM. Honestly though since by level 5 you don't even have a +1 weapon and only a couple of weak items, it hardly seems like the DM is tossing out magic items like candy.
Often the DM will not know how challenging the game is going to be either. Today I am about to run my party of six level 7 characters against a Fire Giant and a level 10 Forge Cleric who has legendary actions. I have no idea how that encounter will pan out - it could be overwhelmingly hard if the cleric's Wall of Fire cuts the party in half (or worse leaves one of them alone with the fire giant) or it could be a whiff if the cleric rolls a 1 on initiative, gets critted by a level 4 Guiding Bolt and then the Blood Hunter crossbowman puts 2 x 20 damage bolts into him and they drop him in a single round.
Maybe you could have some kind of roleplay element for your individual character such as the presence of too much magic nearby causes them splitting headaches. That would allow you to do the thing that you are actually able to do - play your character - in the way that you want to play them, without introducing your own house rules.