# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  Has attunement replaced slots for magic items?

## Boci

Can you know wear 2 amulets and attuneboth of them? I'm assuming no, but, follow up question:

  Should you be able to attune 2 amulets? For context I am very stingy with magical items that are useful in combat but don't require attunement, normally such items are either very situational or give out of combat benefits. Obviously it would be a judgement call on which items can be doubled up. Probably no two pairs of gloves, but 3 rings seems okay, if that's how the players wants to spend their slots. 2 belts? Maybe.

  Thoughts?

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Can you know wear 2 amulets and attuneboth of them? I'm assuming no, but, follow up question:
> 
>   Should you be able to attune 2 amulets? For context I am very stingy with magical items that are useful in combat but don't require attunement, normally such items are either very situational or give out of combat benefits. Obviously it would be a judgement call on which items can be doubled up. Probably no two pairs of gloves, but 3 rings seems okay, if that's how the players wants to spend their slots. 2 belts? Maybe.
> 
>   Thoughts?


Up to the DM, roughly. DMG under Magic Items:




> Multiple Items of the Same Kind
> Use common sense to determine whether more than one of a given kind of magic item can be worn. A character cant normally wear more than one pair of footwear, one pair of gloves or gauntlets, one pair of bracers, one suit of armor, one item of headwear, and one cloak. You can make exceptions; a character might be able to wear a circlet under a helmet, for example, or be able to layer two cloaks.

----------


## Psyren

Can I just say I  love the fact that there are rules now that actually say "use common sense?"  :Small Big Grin: 

I would have started 5e much sooner if there had been more content!

----------


## Boci

> Can I just say I  love the fact that there are rules now that actually say "use common sense?"


  Dunno how knew that is. 3/5 for aid another said "The DM limits cooperation as he or she sees fit for the given conditions." which doesn't use the phrase "common sense" literally, but is pretty much telling you that.

----------


## Mastikator

I've seen people IRL wear like 10 necklaces. I have no problem with a PC wearing two amulets.

Thrikeen can definitely wear two pair of gloves.

----------


## Spore

> Can I just say I  love the fact that there are rules now that actually say "use common sense?" 
> 
> I would have started 5e much sooner if there had been more content!


Still, I can see a disagreement here. Nothing one should bash down with hard rules, but still.

If I had a fellow player equip four necklaces and their character is obviously inspired by Mr T (who wears heavy gold chains to remind him of where he is, and that others have it harder than him) and the DM having a fit because you have several "neck slot" items, I would try to mediate (mostly in favor of the character concept, trying to marry the game effects with the player vision).

If the same happened to obviously abuse an item interaction I'd say screw the player. The old necklace unattunes.

----------


## Psyren

> Still, I can see a disagreement here. Nothing one should bash down with hard rules, but still.
> 
> If I had a fellow player equip four necklaces and their character is obviously inspired by Mr T (who wears heavy gold chains to remind him of where he is, and that others have it harder than him) and the DM having a fit because you have several "neck slot" items, I would try to mediate (mostly in favor of the character concept, trying to marry the game effects with the player vision).
> 
> If the same happened to obviously abuse an item interaction I'd say screw the player. The old necklace unattunes.


The beauty is that there is no wrong answer here as long as everyone is having fun. Attunement slots themselves largely cover the balance consideration.

----------


## BaronCorvo

Slots were a previous, not-very-successful attempt to limit magic item usage. Attunement is simpler replacement and does a better job. Enforcing slots is carrying over a deprecated rule from a different edition. I wouldn't generally let someone double up on gloves or boots, because they're not designed to be worn like that (unless it specifically says it is), just as I wouldn't let someone wear two helmets, but I don't see any problem with two amulets. There's probably some upper limit on how many, but the other thing about attunement is that items that don't require attunement are supposed to be (there are some exceptions) weaker magic. So you're limited (in most cases) to three big items, and it doesn't really matter whether that means three amulets or an amulet, a ring, and a headband. If someone has six amulets, at least three of them will be trivial things that won't break the game. And the DM can just limit how many magic items of each type are available if it's a concern - the old Talismans-R-Us magic shoppe is no longer a thing in 5E.

----------


## Yakk

Note that non-attunement items are a bit of a problem still.

----------


## Kane0

> Note that non-attunement items are a bit of a problem still.


You leave my night vision goggles, bigger-on-the-inside sack, sneaky slippers, coinpinching gloves and bandolier of wands out of this!

----------


## Psyren

> Note that non-attunement items are a bit of a problem still.


Why? Being theoretically stackable is the whole point of these items lacking that limitation.

----------


## Segev

> You leave my night vision goggles, bigger-on-the-inside sack, sneaky slippers, coinpinching gloves and bandolier of wands out of this!


Don't forget your periapt of proof against poison!

----------


## Chronos

Of course, _all_ magic items, attuned or not, are only supposed to be present if the DM gives them out, so if any sort of item is causing a problem, that's the DM's fault.

----------


## Rukelnikov

> Of course, _all_ magic items, attuned or not, are only supposed to be present if the DM gives them out, so if any sort of item is causing a problem, that's the DM's fault.


Even the ones the artificer can make?

----------


## Unoriginal

> Even the ones the artificer can make?


ESPECIALLY the ones the artificer can make.

----------


## stoutstien

> ESPECIALLY the ones the artificer can make.


*Sad compressed air powered trombone cannon noise*

----------


## Yakk

> Why? Being theoretically stackable is the whole point of these items lacking that limitation.


Because 5e designers aren't great at handling infinite stackability of non-attunement items?

You end up converging on the "I am covered in magical wards", which is not the genre that every D&D game wants to be in.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Because 5e designers aren't great at handling infinite stackability of non-attunement items?
> 
> You end up converging on the "I am covered in magical wards", which is not the genre that every D&D game wants to be in.


Are you referring to specific items here? 

I've never seen any combination of items that would result in "I am covered in magical wards" or anything at that level.

----------


## Yakk

The L 20 PC I'm wrapping up the campaign in has a pile of non-attunement magic items that give various bonuses.

The easy ones are the two resist poison/disease necklaces?  There is no mechanical reason every PC isn't wearing both (on top of whatever other item is around their neck).  I think there are more, but I forget.  Google "non-attunement items" for 5e, there are many top 10 lists.

So every PC should have (on top of their usual gear) two necklaces that ward off poison and disease at higher levels, subject to availability of course.  I think they are uncommon?

It is also like how every PC, if they don't have an attunement magic armor sword or shield, should have a generic +X item (if they can get them).  There is no mechanical trade off.

This fits some genres, but not all of them.

----------


## Boci

> The L 20 PC I'm wrapping up the campaign in has a pile of non-attunement magic items that give various bonuses.
> 
> The easy ones are the two resist poison/disease necklaces?  There is no mechanical reason every PC isn't wearing both (on top of whatever other item is around their neck).  I think there are more, but I forget.  Google "non-attunement items" for 5e, there are many top 10 lists.
> 
> So every PC should have (on top of their usual gear) two necklaces that ward off poison and disease at higher levels, subject to availability of course.  I think they are uncommon?
> 
> It is also like how every PC, if they don't have an attunement magic armor sword or shield, should have a generic +X item (if they can get them).  There is no mechanical trade off.
> 
> This fits some genres, but not all of them.


  That's fair, such games could enforce the slot rule in addition to the attunement rules, or just heavily restrict items access. I tend to make non-attunement stuff very situational, so no resistance or anything like that from them. Its also hard to find a specific magical item in most of my games, its more luck of the draw.

----------


## Psyren

> Because 5e designers aren't great at handling infinite stackability of non-attunement items?
> 
> You end up converging on the "I am covered in magical wards", which is not the genre that every D&D game wants to be in.


The designers are intentionally leaning on the DM to control magic item access to a greater degree than in 3e and 4e, especially for non-attunement items, and largely getting out of the way of that. If both your table and your DM enjoy the PCs finding and layering swathes of non-attunement items, that's up to you - the attunement mechanic is there as a balancing tool for those items that truly result in player power increases.  To paraphrase/mangle a saying, _"As ye unfun none, do what thou wilt."_

----------


## Boci

> The designers are intentionally leaning on the DM to control magic item access to a greater degree than in 3e and 4e, *especially for non-attunement items*, and largely getting out of the way of that.[/I]


  Are you sure about the bolded part, or is that just your intuition on designer intent? Not saying its impossible, but just wondering if the DMG actually specifically highlights how non-attunement items may need extra attention.

----------


## Psyren

> Are you sure about the bolded part, or is that just your intuition on designer intent? Not saying its impossible, but just wondering if the DMG actually specifically highlights how non-attunement items may need extra attention.


It's my interpretation of the "common sense" clause. Since there is no hard mechanical ceiling on magic items per slot (other than things like magic weapons, shields and foci needing free hands to wield), and no attunement limit for non-attuned items, such limits are left up to the DM's discretion. If they had wanted a hard limit enforced in the rules they could have done so.

Having said that, I suspect our best possible window into designer intent will be to see the magic item rules in 1DnD whenever that UA rolls around.

----------


## Boci

> It's my interpretation of the "common sense" clause.


  The full sentence - 

"Use common sense to determine whether more than one of a given kind of magic item can be worn."

  Which to me doesn't seem to be talking about balance and rather just "you can't wear 2 pairs of boots over each other". Yakk mentioned 2 non-attuned amulets. I wouldn't be too impressed with a DM who lets my player get those two amulets, but then tells me their "common sense" tells them I can only wear one at once. If it doesn't work for balance reasons then sure, but not because I can't physically wear 2 amulets.

----------


## Psyren

> The full sentence - 
> 
> "Use common sense to determine whether more than one of a given kind of magic item can be worn."
> 
>   Which to me doesn't seem to be talking about balance and rather just "you can't wear 2 pairs of boots over each other". Yakk mentioned 2 non-attuned amulets. I wouldn't be too impressed with a DM who lets my player get those two amulets, but then tells me their "common sense" tells them I can only wear one at once. If it doesn't work for balance reasons then sure, but not because I can't physically wear 2 amulets.


Sure, absent a dev statement my interpretation is just my interpretation. But again, if they had wanted to say "you can only wear one of a given type of item regardless of attunement," they could have.

----------


## Toofey

I pity the fool who only allows a single amulet or necklace.

----------


## Chronos

> Quoth *Psyren*:
> 
> But again, if they had wanted to say "you can only wear one of a given type of item regardless of attunement," they could have.


And they didn't say that, because that's not what they wanted to say.  Leaving aside magic for the moment, you can clearly wear two necklaces at once, but clearly can't wear two pairs of boots at once.  Does that mean that the feet slot has a one-item limit, but the neck slot has a higher limit?  But what if you have a pair of boots and a pair of socks--  You can wear both of those at once.  And maybe, instead of a "necklace", you have a heavy iron locking collar...  You might not be able to wear two of those at once.  You might or might not be able to wear a hood over a helmet, depending on the size of the hood, but you probably can't wear it over a broad-brimmed hat.

They didn't want to cover all of those sorts of limitations, because it'd get tedious, and besides, someone would probably come up with some combination they didn't think of.  And they didn't particularly feel the need to, because most magical items are already limited by attunement.  So they made explicit rules for attunement, and then said to use common sense for all of those other questions as they come up.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> And they didn't say that, because that's not what they wanted to say.  Leaving aside magic for the moment, you can clearly wear two necklaces at once, but clearly can't wear two pairs of boots at once.  Does that mean that the feet slot has a one-item limit, but the neck slot has a higher limit?  But what if you have a pair of boots and a pair of socks--  You can wear both of those at once.  And maybe, instead of a "necklace", you have a heavy iron locking collar...  You might not be able to wear two of those at once.  You might or might not be able to wear a hood over a helmet, depending on the size of the hood, but you probably can't wear it over a broad-brimmed hat.
> 
> They didn't want to cover all of those sorts of limitations, because it'd get tedious, and besides, someone would probably come up with some combination they didn't think of.  And they didn't particularly feel the need to, because most magical items are already limited by attunement.  So they made explicit rules for attunement, and then said to use common sense for all of those other questions as they come up.


And then you have to decide what slots exist (and do so for all sorts of creatures, something 3e found rather wonky), what items fit into what slots, ...

I agree that common sense + attunement is the sanest combination of rules here.

----------


## Psyren

> And they didn't say that, because that's not what they wanted to say.  Leaving aside magic for the moment, you can clearly wear two necklaces at once, but clearly can't wear two pairs of boots at once.  Does that mean that the feet slot has a one-item limit, but the neck slot has a higher limit?  But what if you have a pair of boots and a pair of socks--  You can wear both of those at once.  And maybe, instead of a "necklace", you have a heavy iron locking collar...  You might not be able to wear two of those at once.  You might or might not be able to wear a hood over a helmet, depending on the size of the hood, but you probably can't wear it over a broad-brimmed hat.
> 
> They didn't want to cover all of those sorts of limitations, because it'd get tedious, and besides, someone would probably come up with some combination they didn't think of.  And they didn't particularly feel the need to, because most magical items are already limited by attunement.  So they made explicit rules for attunement, and then said to use common sense for all of those other questions as they come up.


You appear to be preaching to the choir.




> I pity the fool who only allows a single amulet or necklace.


I see what you did there  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## Person_Man

Having limited magic item slots encourages players to share magic items.  Which can be a problem for my small children.  But for (somewhat) more rational adults - meh - whatever works.

----------


## Boci

> Having limited magic item slots encourages players to share magic items.  Which can be a problem for my small children.  But for (somewhat) more rational adults - meh - whatever works.


  Sorry, but slot is a bit unhelpful in this thread. Do you mean attunement slots of 5e, the body slots of 3-4th ed, or both?

----------


## SangoProduction

> Having limited magic item slots encourages players to share magic items.  Which can be a problem for my small children.  But for (somewhat) more rational adults - meh - whatever works.


No. My Hunter will roll need on every drop.  Nothing will make me share!

----------


## TheBrassDuke

Our DM doesnt believe in Attunement slots.

----------


## Yakk

> Having limited magic item slots encourages players to share magic items.  Which can be a problem for my small children.  But for (somewhat) more rational adults - meh - whatever works.


Mostly it is an aid to DMs?

It means you don't have to be as careful with what magic items you distribute, because Players can only use (slot count) number of them.

It also helps with world feel, if you don't want every PC to be bedecked in dozens of magic trinkets.

----------

