Here is a question for players to get an understanding of how to best deal with the issue of the Monty Haul dungeon where there is treasure behind every door. The Campaign where the characters are carting around a wheelbarrow of magic items behind them to deal with every monster or situation that can end up becoming comical is well known to us all. When I first played the AD&D fist edition game the party wizard had four bags of holding and an index in his spell book letting him know which magic items were stored in which pouch in the bags of holding. Each one was broken out by class.
I see in the 5th edition rules there are some natural limits on this that may work very well and that is the mechanic of attunement. A character may attune to their person no more than three major magic items at a time and every major item only works for one person. A major item being defined as simply requiring attunement. Lesser magic can still be traded and stored as normal, but these are by definition not as powerful and more common, i.e. everyone will have one.
Now there is one loophole that can be taken advantage of and that is the fact that players may end the attunement of an item. This means that so long as I just spend the requisite time necessary for the attunement process before going against whatever I am facing maybe I don't have a wheelbarrow as such, more of a toolshed of attunement. So, the party will over the course of adventures gather items and the Monty Haul effect will still infest the 5e campaign making it unrealistic.
The trope that is supposed to answer this is "Well, a good DM does not give magic items, neener neener neener but this is easier said than done. One, players want to find the magic item at the end of a quest and even stingy DMs can end up with players getting enough magic to stock a warehouse simply because an long campaign where the party goes from 1st to high level results in enough campaigns and quests and monsters defeated that the party will have access to more magic than they can use.
You can correct this with the magic item shop but this ends up feeding into the Monty Haul effect as well because now, not only do I have my toolshed in back of the castle with all my magic items I have the ManaMallMart in the big town I can travel to in order to get order whatever I might want.
So here is the question. What penalties are there for ending the attunement of an item.
If the player ends the attunement is it reasonable to assume this end is permanent. Should they reattempt to attune a magic item they willingly ended the attunement of does the magic now reject further attempts to attune. This could create plot hooks for a quest and atonement to find the magic within the item again or to bargain with whatever that made it.
If the item was made by fiendish magic the attunement could simply end after a random number of days or weeks with the item only working to dial in to Abyssal Tech Support where the character can of course trade other things like their soul for extended magical life.
Perhaps some items can only be attuned in times of great need and only work then so when the kingdom is in peril of invasion then the artifact Bracers of the Crown can be attuned to a champion to lead the people to victory over the demonic armies of the evil overlord.
Should there be a mandatory waiting period to reattune an item say six months game time instead of never. Does that seem more palatable to a player?
I am not sure.
As a DM how do you feel about this issue and how will you specifically use the attunement rules to make magic items in game more realistic and playable.
As a Player how do you feel about the rules and which of the things,, I mentioned do you most object to and what other mechanics would you propose to make magic items in the game more fun.
Now there is one loophole that can be taken advantage of and that is the fact that players may end the attunement of an item. This means that so long as I just spend the requisite time necessary for the attunement process before going against whatever I am facing maybe I don't have a wheelbarrow as such, more of a toolshed of attunement. So, the party will over the course of adventures gather items and the Monty Haul effect will still infest the 5e campaign making it unrealistic.
As with any other abusive loophole, I just ask the players to respect the intent of the rules. If they need to be superheroes with a ready solution to anything, we can do a one-shot to get it out of their system or something. But fortunately my players are mature enough to realize that the game is more fun and satisfying when they are actually challenged.
It can also help to have a living world with a cast of NPCs. My party has gotten great satisfaction in giving unused magic items to allies who can then use them to protect their home or fight the enemy on a separate front.
I haven't had an issue really. The majority of items given are potions and scrolls, and things that don't even take attunement. Switching attunement takes long enough that you don't ever see it during a dungeon crawl, and players basically only ever switch in one direction -- never back again. On the rare occasion when they do, they feel pretty cool for remembering the option, lol.
No, really the only complaints I have are in regards to the permanence of permanent items. There are some items that are either too important to a build, or otherwise have too large of an impact on the play pattern, and the result is that one or more of a player's attunement slots get permanently locked up too early. Things like the Illusionist's Bracers, Wand of the War Mage, and Gauntlets of Ogre Strength are among these. The only reason you'd ever switch them is if you happen to obtain one with a bigger number on it.
In a lot of ways, 5e is reactionary against 4e's perceived power creep--a perception I assume was mostly driven by incompetent DMs who just could not design encounters commensurate with player abilities. Attunement and a generally inferior system for magical items is one of the major areas where you can see this reactionary behavior--Wizards clearly made their system vastly worse to neuter players and make things easier on bad DMs.
Personally, I tend to work with my players to decide a list of items they would like and eventually will give those out as loot--why? Because 5e is a pretty terrible system for character customization, with most of your real decision making being decided by level 3 in a given class. Working with players gives them increased customization options they otherwise would not obtain, while still giving me the ability to control when those items actually enter circulation. This also means I do not end up giving out more attunable items than the players will actually end up using, avoiding revolving door "I attune this niche weapon for this niche purpose" effects.
Now, that does not mean I only give out player requested loot--there is some fun in random loot that players are like "what do I do with this?" and have to decide who gets what. But that is what non-attunable items are for. Things that players can pass around and use for niche purposes, and which require some tactical decisions of "what do we take out of the bag of holding for right now and who do we give it to?"
As a DM how do you feel about this issue and how will you specifically use the attunement rules to make magic items in game more realistic and playable.
Most of the magic items I give out are homebrew, and the ones that require attunement generally aren't just "must be by class X" or "practice with it over a short rest" kind of attunements. They require the character to do something meaningful to attune to it, so swapping back and forth may not be that simple
For example, one of the character has a magic shortsword which in addition to being a +1 weapon pre-attunement has a bunch of other bonuses and features that unlock after attunement. To attune to it though, you have to "face a fear" -- a deliberately vague and open-ended requirement that allows for RP opportunities or just an in-combat moment if the character is, say, frightened of something but keeps fighting
Others require meditation/short rest attunements, but only under certain conditions related to the item: under a full moon, in the light of dawn, that kind of thing
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
As an aside, I've seen a neat system in the Dying Earth game where it costs points to keep items between adventures (which are shorter than you're probably used to). You're assumed to lose everything, unless otherwise stated. I don't think it would go over well in D&D, because players get really attached to their stuff -- and also because historically it's been complicated to install and uninstall items! You have to recalculate your math. But in that game it makes sense because the source material has characters constantly getting stuff stolen, dropping it, and using it up, and also the stuff doesn't really have the same character-sheet impact as D&D stuff. You'll never see a sword that gives +1 to hit and damage and can be activated as a bonus action to deal 2d6 additional necrotic damage. You might see a sword that can cut through anything.
Even so, it's an interesting prospect. Worth thinking about, even if you never use it.
I have talked to people who simply ignore 5e attunement rules if their campaign requires (or they enjoy) more attuned magic items then allowed by the rules and I have talked to people who seem to hate all magic items (and love to rage about them).
The short answer is talk to your GM or if you are a GM create rules that fit your game world and play style.
The point of this thread is not to make judgements about good or bad or to influence anyone either way. If people want to change or eliminate the rules that is fine.
The point is to discuss the mechanic of attunement itself and how it can be used or not used and specifically who it might affect the game. I understand it is about talking with the GM but what should the GM's take be and especially as a player why would you like it removed and why would you keep it and if it were changed what rule should go on.
The problem is inherent to the nature of the game especially if you play to say 10th level. Assume that it is on average 4 game sessions to the next level this is 40 game sessions total. Quite a bit of time. If the GM wanted the party to have 12 items total then that means for each character it is 20 game sessions to 5th level to get their first magic item.
If the GM gives out 1 item a game session then that is 40 items which for a party of six is 6.67 items a character and 2 items is 12 each. Not to mention the gold and the ability to buy magic as needed. Even if you want to have a normal session where it is balanced this is difficult in a long running campaign.
So, I can see the attunement rules as a method of controlling this while still allowing a GM to give out enough items per adventure to make the game interesting even if it will go on for a while. I have played a lot of earlier DnD but this is my first look at 5e really and I am trying to flush out what the mechanic would do in game. To my mind the three item attunement rule allows a GM to be a GM and give out treasure with less worry but maybe 5 is better or maybe only 2 or maybe none at all.
I am just interested in what if anything people feel about this. That is my only goal.
I do think attunement is heavily restrictive, and limits the ability to make magic items work in interesting ways, but at the same time it does help a little to prevent crazy stuff that no-one would have predicted.
I think one of the more interesting magic item designs I've seen in this edition are the Vestiges of Divergence and Arms of the Betrayer in Wildemount, which are artifacts that start out relatively weak but "level up" with the character over time.
I do think attunement is heavily restrictive, and limits the ability to make magic items work in interesting ways, but at the same time it does help a little to prevent crazy stuff that no-one would have predicted.
I think one of the more interesting magic item designs I've seen in this edition are the Vestiges of Divergence and Arms of the Betrayer in Wildemount, which are artifacts that start out relatively weak but "level up" with the character over time.
I don't know if you ever played Earthdawn but their mechanic of magic items worked around that principle. A character had to weave a thread to the item just as they weaved a thread to a spell to cast it. This cost the character XP if I remember and there were limits to the number of threads you could have. As you leveled up you got new threads that you could weave into an item already attuned to you and thus you unlocked more power.
You have given me an interesting idea here, an artifact that is "jealous" of attunement. Once you link to the artifact by attuning it you gain a certain power level but the artifact wants you to only attune to it so it offers you the ability to attune to another aspect of it. In doing this you gain more power, but it costs two of your attunements. Eventually if you give all three of your attunements to the artifact then it takes over. An evil cursed artifact could easily work this way. Interesting idea.
When I read you post it reminded me of many other similar post (in structure, length and ideas) I have read through the years on D&DB and other RPG forums. In those posts almost always the poster seemed to hate magic items.
A friend of mine just gave me a copy of a new 5e flavor that has some more detail on things I would consider attunement possibilities and or item growth. If you are interested you can PM me and I will give you the title.
Honestly this sounds like an issue that needs to be talked out at the table more than anything else. Seems like there's a disconnect in this scenario between players who want high magic item availability and a DM who wants low magic item availability.
Honestly this sounds like an issue that needs to be talked out at the table more than anything else. Seems like there's a disconnect in this scenario between players who want high magic item availability and a DM who wants low magic item availability.
Unfortunately the internet breeds this kind of distrust. For me this is not about magic items being bad or good. I love them and feel they are a necessity in a game and when I DM I like handing them out to players However .....
It is something easy to screw up and ruin your game over with a mistake
Too few items and the game is not fun for the players and you lose the spice they add to the game, to many and it becomes a joke and eventually it feels out.
To me this mechanic adds a lot of interesting twists to this that can add to the game. It is something I am interested in understanding so the idea is to get as many people to comment on what they like or don 't like and what may have worked or not worked.
I understand the issue from old D&D, it is no new, what I am trying to do is suss out how this mechanic will alter the game.
This might be a hot take, but I feel magic items are at their best when they serve the narrative.
Like not even necessarily a McGuffin, though that's a pretty good way to have them. But even as rewards for the resolution of major story beats. It makes getting them feel significant, and it makes the benefits of having or using them feel "earned".
And related to this, it's why I think allowing characters to craft their own magic items also has its place when it requires an entire quest and not insignificant effort. It is likely to be much more appreciated to have said item if the player made it themselves.
In my homebrew, every magic item is unique (there are some exceptions, some potions and wands among them), and magic is not traded for gold. Bam!
So basically, any player should expect to have a few powerful magic items, but it's never become an issue that they had any surplus. There's an added benefit: When gold doesn't translate into power, players wind up spending gold on things that people usually spend money on - clothes, housing, transportation, food and so on. It's positively heartlifting. And bribes. Titles. Land.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
You may want to have special abilities have a limit to the number of times they can be used before they break or become inert. For example, wand of fire can be used like in the book but it is only magical for 1 year before it is unmade or requires re-magicing by a special guild.
One thing idea have used in the past is a base item that is expanded by finding parts or finding parts that can then be enchanted thus expanding the use of the item.
Too many items: This can always be an issue in a game, I have played in games where magic items were rare and people did not want to use them when they really needed to (and died) and in games where we hired multiple NPC's to carry gear and items (they got a cut of the treasure just like a PC would but maybe not a full share) and the NPC's often provided items to players so they could defeat the encounter.
If attunement is very game world or story based then I have found the players really need to buy into that idea once the "story based idea" seems to be abused it can kill the players interest. Also try and make it universal in nature, by that I mean do not have rules for PC's and different rules for NPC's.
One thing that can turn me off in a game is if the bad guys always have cool stuff and I or the other players cannot us them for various reasons. In the past when talking to the GM about this they at times have replied well the group is powerful so the only way I can deal with you is giving the enemy helms of brilliance (but deal extra damage to non-undead) and attunement requires you to be a worshiper of evil god X and it seems only items the GM does not want you to have can get these attunement restrictions.
To me an option to solve the above issue is to give the creatures extra HP and possibly other abilities (maybe give them a new name) to deal with the power imbalance or play imbalance (players work very well together and this makes encounters more easy then the rules say they should be)
I find that magic armor and weapons, especially of the plane Jane +x variety, don’t have, or need, attunement. It’s those that have strong benefits that mostly call for attunement. So I’m fairly liberal with the “common magic items” while being stingier with the attunable items. In most cases there is little trading around as there is very little you would want to trade up (or down) for. If your a Wizard with a cloak of protection what are you going to trade it for?
The problem is inherent to the nature of the game especially if you play to say 10th level. Assume that it is on average 4 game sessions to the next level this is 40 game sessions total. Quite a bit of time. If the GM wanted the party to have 12 items total then that means for each character it is 20 game sessions to 5th level to get their first magic item.
If the GM gives out 1 item a game session then that is 40 items which for a party of six is 6.67 items a character and 2 items is 12 each. Not to mention the gold and the ability to buy magic as needed. Even if you want to have a normal session where it is balanced this is difficult in a long running campaign.
I think most people would consider 1 magic item per session to be a very high rate of magic item distribution, especially if we're just talking permanent items that require attunement.
Change it to every other session, and 25-50% of the time give out two consumables or a non-attunement item and the PCs barely fill half their slots by 10. In my experience, this is much closer to the expected rate of items in a campaign setting with the default expectations of magic abundance.
Hello Everyone
Here is a question for players to get an understanding of how to best deal with the issue of the Monty Haul dungeon where there is treasure behind every door. The Campaign where the characters are carting around a wheelbarrow of magic items behind them to deal with every monster or situation that can end up becoming comical is well known to us all. When I first played the AD&D fist edition game the party wizard had four bags of holding and an index in his spell book letting him know which magic items were stored in which pouch in the bags of holding. Each one was broken out by class.
I see in the 5th edition rules there are some natural limits on this that may work very well and that is the mechanic of attunement. A character may attune to their person no more than three major magic items at a time and every major item only works for one person. A major item being defined as simply requiring attunement. Lesser magic can still be traded and stored as normal, but these are by definition not as powerful and more common, i.e. everyone will have one.
Now there is one loophole that can be taken advantage of and that is the fact that players may end the attunement of an item. This means that so long as I just spend the requisite time necessary for the attunement process before going against whatever I am facing maybe I don't have a wheelbarrow as such, more of a toolshed of attunement. So, the party will over the course of adventures gather items and the Monty Haul effect will still infest the 5e campaign making it unrealistic.
The trope that is supposed to answer this is "Well, a good DM does not give magic items, neener neener neener but this is easier said than done. One, players want to find the magic item at the end of a quest and even stingy DMs can end up with players getting enough magic to stock a warehouse simply because an long campaign where the party goes from 1st to high level results in enough campaigns and quests and monsters defeated that the party will have access to more magic than they can use.
You can correct this with the magic item shop but this ends up feeding into the Monty Haul effect as well because now, not only do I have my toolshed in back of the castle with all my magic items I have the ManaMallMart in the big town I can travel to in order to get order whatever I might want.
So here is the question. What penalties are there for ending the attunement of an item.
If the player ends the attunement is it reasonable to assume this end is permanent. Should they reattempt to attune a magic item they willingly ended the attunement of does the magic now reject further attempts to attune. This could create plot hooks for a quest and atonement to find the magic within the item again or to bargain with whatever that made it.
If the item was made by fiendish magic the attunement could simply end after a random number of days or weeks with the item only working to dial in to Abyssal Tech Support where the character can of course trade other things like their soul for extended magical life.
Perhaps some items can only be attuned in times of great need and only work then so when the kingdom is in peril of invasion then the artifact Bracers of the Crown can be attuned to a champion to lead the people to victory over the demonic armies of the evil overlord.
Should there be a mandatory waiting period to reattune an item say six months game time instead of never. Does that seem more palatable to a player?
I am not sure.
As a DM how do you feel about this issue and how will you specifically use the attunement rules to make magic items in game more realistic and playable.
As a Player how do you feel about the rules and which of the things,, I mentioned do you most object to and what other mechanics would you propose to make magic items in the game more fun.
Just a question!
As with any other abusive loophole, I just ask the players to respect the intent of the rules. If they need to be superheroes with a ready solution to anything, we can do a one-shot to get it out of their system or something. But fortunately my players are mature enough to realize that the game is more fun and satisfying when they are actually challenged.
It can also help to have a living world with a cast of NPCs. My party has gotten great satisfaction in giving unused magic items to allies who can then use them to protect their home or fight the enemy on a separate front.
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 haven't had an issue really. The majority of items given are potions and scrolls, and things that don't even take attunement. Switching attunement takes long enough that you don't ever see it during a dungeon crawl, and players basically only ever switch in one direction -- never back again. On the rare occasion when they do, they feel pretty cool for remembering the option, lol.
No, really the only complaints I have are in regards to the permanence of permanent items. There are some items that are either too important to a build, or otherwise have too large of an impact on the play pattern, and the result is that one or more of a player's attunement slots get permanently locked up too early. Things like the Illusionist's Bracers, Wand of the War Mage, and Gauntlets of Ogre Strength are among these. The only reason you'd ever switch them is if you happen to obtain one with a bigger number on it.
In a lot of ways, 5e is reactionary against 4e's perceived power creep--a perception I assume was mostly driven by incompetent DMs who just could not design encounters commensurate with player abilities. Attunement and a generally inferior system for magical items is one of the major areas where you can see this reactionary behavior--Wizards clearly made their system vastly worse to neuter players and make things easier on bad DMs.
Personally, I tend to work with my players to decide a list of items they would like and eventually will give those out as loot--why? Because 5e is a pretty terrible system for character customization, with most of your real decision making being decided by level 3 in a given class. Working with players gives them increased customization options they otherwise would not obtain, while still giving me the ability to control when those items actually enter circulation. This also means I do not end up giving out more attunable items than the players will actually end up using, avoiding revolving door "I attune this niche weapon for this niche purpose" effects.
Now, that does not mean I only give out player requested loot--there is some fun in random loot that players are like "what do I do with this?" and have to decide who gets what. But that is what non-attunable items are for. Things that players can pass around and use for niche purposes, and which require some tactical decisions of "what do we take out of the bag of holding for right now and who do we give it to?"
Most of the magic items I give out are homebrew, and the ones that require attunement generally aren't just "must be by class X" or "practice with it over a short rest" kind of attunements. They require the character to do something meaningful to attune to it, so swapping back and forth may not be that simple
For example, one of the character has a magic shortsword which in addition to being a +1 weapon pre-attunement has a bunch of other bonuses and features that unlock after attunement. To attune to it though, you have to "face a fear" -- a deliberately vague and open-ended requirement that allows for RP opportunities or just an in-combat moment if the character is, say, frightened of something but keeps fighting
Others require meditation/short rest attunements, but only under certain conditions related to the item: under a full moon, in the light of dawn, that kind of thing
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
As an aside, I've seen a neat system in the Dying Earth game where it costs points to keep items between adventures (which are shorter than you're probably used to). You're assumed to lose everything, unless otherwise stated. I don't think it would go over well in D&D, because players get really attached to their stuff -- and also because historically it's been complicated to install and uninstall items! You have to recalculate your math. But in that game it makes sense because the source material has characters constantly getting stuff stolen, dropping it, and using it up, and also the stuff doesn't really have the same character-sheet impact as D&D stuff. You'll never see a sword that gives +1 to hit and damage and can be activated as a bonus action to deal 2d6 additional necrotic damage. You might see a sword that can cut through anything.
Even so, it's an interesting prospect. Worth thinking about, even if you never use it.
I have talked to people who simply ignore 5e attunement rules if their campaign requires (or they enjoy) more attuned magic items then allowed by the rules and I have talked to people who seem to hate all magic items (and love to rage about them).
The short answer is talk to your GM or if you are a GM create rules that fit your game world and play style.
The point of this thread is not to make judgements about good or bad or to influence anyone either way. If people want to change or eliminate the rules that is fine.
The point is to discuss the mechanic of attunement itself and how it can be used or not used and specifically who it might affect the game. I understand it is about talking with the GM but what should the GM's take be and especially as a player why would you like it removed and why would you keep it and if it were changed what rule should go on.
The problem is inherent to the nature of the game especially if you play to say 10th level. Assume that it is on average 4 game sessions to the next level this is 40 game sessions total. Quite a bit of time. If the GM wanted the party to have 12 items total then that means for each character it is 20 game sessions to 5th level to get their first magic item.
If the GM gives out 1 item a game session then that is 40 items which for a party of six is 6.67 items a character and 2 items is 12 each. Not to mention the gold and the ability to buy magic as needed. Even if you want to have a normal session where it is balanced this is difficult in a long running campaign.
So, I can see the attunement rules as a method of controlling this while still allowing a GM to give out enough items per adventure to make the game interesting even if it will go on for a while. I have played a lot of earlier DnD but this is my first look at 5e really and I am trying to flush out what the mechanic would do in game. To my mind the three item attunement rule allows a GM to be a GM and give out treasure with less worry but maybe 5 is better or maybe only 2 or maybe none at all.
I am just interested in what if anything people feel about this. That is my only goal.
I do think attunement is heavily restrictive, and limits the ability to make magic items work in interesting ways, but at the same time it does help a little to prevent crazy stuff that no-one would have predicted.
I think one of the more interesting magic item designs I've seen in this edition are the Vestiges of Divergence and Arms of the Betrayer in Wildemount, which are artifacts that start out relatively weak but "level up" with the character over time.
I don't know if you ever played Earthdawn but their mechanic of magic items worked around that principle. A character had to weave a thread to the item just as they weaved a thread to a spell to cast it. This cost the character XP if I remember and there were limits to the number of threads you could have. As you leveled up you got new threads that you could weave into an item already attuned to you and thus you unlocked more power.
You have given me an interesting idea here, an artifact that is "jealous" of attunement. Once you link to the artifact by attuning it you gain a certain power level but the artifact wants you to only attune to it so it offers you the ability to attune to another aspect of it. In doing this you gain more power, but it costs two of your attunements. Eventually if you give all three of your attunements to the artifact then it takes over. An evil cursed artifact could easily work this way. Interesting idea.
Thanks for the feedback.
When I read you post it reminded me of many other similar post (in structure, length and ideas) I have read through the years on D&DB and other RPG forums. In those posts almost always the poster seemed to hate magic items.
A friend of mine just gave me a copy of a new 5e flavor that has some more detail on things I would consider attunement possibilities and or item growth. If you are interested you can PM me and I will give you the title.
Honestly this sounds like an issue that needs to be talked out at the table more than anything else. Seems like there's a disconnect in this scenario between players who want high magic item availability and a DM who wants low magic item availability.
Unfortunately the internet breeds this kind of distrust. For me this is not about magic items being bad or good. I love them and feel they are a necessity in a game and when I DM I like handing them out to players However .....
It is something easy to screw up and ruin your game over with a mistake
Too few items and the game is not fun for the players and you lose the spice they add to the game, to many and it becomes a joke and eventually it feels out.
To me this mechanic adds a lot of interesting twists to this that can add to the game. It is something I am interested in understanding so the idea is to get as many people to comment on what they like or don 't like and what may have worked or not worked.
I understand the issue from old D&D, it is no new, what I am trying to do is suss out how this mechanic will alter the game.
This might be a hot take, but I feel magic items are at their best when they serve the narrative.
Like not even necessarily a McGuffin, though that's a pretty good way to have them. But even as rewards for the resolution of major story beats. It makes getting them feel significant, and it makes the benefits of having or using them feel "earned".
And related to this, it's why I think allowing characters to craft their own magic items also has its place when it requires an entire quest and not insignificant effort. It is likely to be much more appreciated to have said item if the player made it themselves.
In my homebrew, every magic item is unique (there are some exceptions, some potions and wands among them), and magic is not traded for gold. Bam!
So basically, any player should expect to have a few powerful magic items, but it's never become an issue that they had any surplus. There's an added benefit: When gold doesn't translate into power, players wind up spending gold on things that people usually spend money on - clothes, housing, transportation, food and so on. It's positively heartlifting. And bribes. Titles. Land.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
You may want to have special abilities have a limit to the number of times they can be used before they break or become inert. For example, wand of fire can be used like in the book but it is only magical for 1 year before it is unmade or requires re-magicing by a special guild.
One thing idea have used in the past is a base item that is expanded by finding parts or finding parts that can then be enchanted thus expanding the use of the item.
Too many items: This can always be an issue in a game, I have played in games where magic items were rare and people did not want to use them when they really needed to (and died) and in games where we hired multiple NPC's to carry gear and items (they got a cut of the treasure just like a PC would but maybe not a full share) and the NPC's often provided items to players so they could defeat the encounter.
If it takes a long rest to attune an item then it should take that long away from the item to un attune to it.
And you can not attune to a new item until you have an a slot available for the new item.
That should easily make having a few extra items around a bit more difficult to use or abuse.
Gather and use all you want but remember that some NPC might just take notice and help themselves to your hoard.
If attunement is very game world or story based then I have found the players really need to buy into that idea once the "story based idea" seems to be abused it can kill the players interest. Also try and make it universal in nature, by that I mean do not have rules for PC's and different rules for NPC's.
One thing that can turn me off in a game is if the bad guys always have cool stuff and I or the other players cannot us them for various reasons. In the past when talking to the GM about this they at times have replied well the group is powerful so the only way I can deal with you is giving the enemy helms of brilliance (but deal extra damage to non-undead) and attunement requires you to be a worshiper of evil god X and it seems only items the GM does not want you to have can get these attunement restrictions.
To me an option to solve the above issue is to give the creatures extra HP and possibly other abilities (maybe give them a new name) to deal with the power imbalance or play imbalance (players work very well together and this makes encounters more easy then the rules say they should be)
I find that magic armor and weapons, especially of the plane Jane +x variety, don’t have, or need, attunement. It’s those that have strong benefits that mostly call for attunement. So I’m fairly liberal with the “common magic items” while being stingier with the attunable items. In most cases there is little trading around as there is very little you would want to trade up (or down) for. If your a Wizard with a cloak of protection what are you going to trade it for?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I think most people would consider 1 magic item per session to be a very high rate of magic item distribution, especially if we're just talking permanent items that require attunement.
Change it to every other session, and 25-50% of the time give out two consumables or a non-attunement item and the PCs barely fill half their slots by 10. In my experience, this is much closer to the expected rate of items in a campaign setting with the default expectations of magic abundance.
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