5
\$\begingroup\$

I am PC in a extremely high magic campaign. I am a level five character, and I have already used up all three of my attunement slots. My DM is fine with homebrew.

My question is would a magic item that increased the number of attunement slots you have by two, and does require attunement be too powerful?

There could be a prereq that you must have a constitution of at least 16. And there would have to be something that stops someone from attuning to more that one of these.

I have seen the other question that is similar to this one that ask if there are any items, but I am asking if such a item would be to powerful.

\$\endgroup\$
1

1 Answer 1

13
\$\begingroup\$

The Dungeon Master's Guide recommends against doing this

The intro to Chapter 9 of the DMG, "Dungeon Master's Workshop", states (on page 263):

[...]

Beware of adding anything to your game that allows a character to concentrate on more than one effect at a time, use more than one reaction or bonus action per round, or attune to more than three magic items at a time. Rules and game elements that override the rules for concentration, reactions, bonus actions, and magic item attunement can seriously unbalance or overcomplicate your game.


Artificers can do it, but that's their whole schtick

The Artificer class gains an additional attunement slot at levels 10, 14, and 18. These features (Magic Item Adept, Magic Item Savant, and Magic Item Master) are incredibly strong, especially at 14th level when they gain the ability to ignore most prerequisites for attunement. But magic items is the Artificer's entire thing; it's what they do, and they do it very well. The class creates magic items, and giving them more attunement slots couples with this nicely, incredibly nicely. I've seen these features, and they are strong; I caution against giving them out to other characters, especially when this would step on the toes of another class that thrives with magic items.


Playtesting is always a good idea

At the end of the day, regardless of what I, the DMG, or Artificers say, the best way to determine if a change is too strong for your campaign is to playtest it. To throw it in and see where it goes, see what your players do with it (maybe even what the enemies do with it.) Because, while we can make sophisticated guesses or I can speak to my own experiences at my own tables, those are my tables. My players might not capitalize on a rule the same way yours would and the item may impact my worlds in ways vastly different from yours. So I'll repeat my usual advice with homebrew: Playtest, playtest, playtest.


Of note, if you do implement this item, you don't need to add anything to prevent somebody from attuning to more than one. The attunement rules have you covered:

Additionally, a creature can't attune to more than one copy of an item. For example, a creature can't attune to more than one ring of protection at a time.

Also of note, if you make an item that requires attunement and increases the number of attunement slots available by one, that item is almost certainly balanced, what with its exceedingly few use-cases.

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • \$\begingroup\$ This is, of course, what the rules themselves say. Ignoring the fact that Wizards themselves tend to unbalance their own game, this doesn't really answer the question "Will the game break if I allow this?" It just says "The book says things will break." Did it break a game you were running / playing? You allude to your own tables but don't elaborate. A houserule I've seen often online is to allow attuned items up to proficiency. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jason_c_o
    Mar 30, 2022 at 0:49
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Jason_c_o "I've seen these features, and they are strong; I caution against giving them out to other characters, especially when this would step on the toes of another class that thrives with magic items. [...] the best way to determine if a change is too strong for your campaign is to playtest it. [...] I can speak to my own experiences at my own tables, those are my tables. My players might not capitalize on a rule the same way yours would and the item may impact my worlds in ways vastly different from yours." In short, yes, I have seen having more than 3 attunement slots "break" games \$\endgroup\$ Mar 30, 2022 at 0:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ That, to me, is the experience that needs to be emphasized within the answer. How did it break? \$\endgroup\$
    – Jason_c_o
    Mar 30, 2022 at 0:51
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Jason_c_o I'm alright with how it's emphasized already, and will probably be leaving it as-is, but I do appreciate the advice \$\endgroup\$ Mar 30, 2022 at 0:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .