D&D 5E Attunement

[clearstream]

And so I reiterate: if you plan on increasing the limit to six, consider simply removing it instead.

I share your feeling on this. Why have a limit unless it offers interesting game play? And you don't have to throw out the whole rule: you might decide to retain the uniqueness constraint (a player can benefit from only one copy of an item listed in the DMG as requiring attunement). And scaling feels like it will end up either not relevant or about the same as a fixed limit unless you also scale the items themselves into some kind of tiered system.

I dislike suggestions of linking attunement to character stats as that seems to be offering players with great stats a win-more benefit. Or if they are choosing stats then whatever stat links to attunement gets extra weight which punished players who choose classes that need to prioritise other stats: it will be kind of like saying that some classes naturally have more access to items than others. That could be okay in the right campaign, but overall I dislike it.

Overall I would suggest something very simple but still limiting e.g. scale 2/3/4 against campaign magic level. Or something more complex like tiering. Or dropping altogether... possibly retaining uniqueness.

 

[Kaychsea]

And so I reiterate: if you plan on increasing the limit to six, consider simply removing it instead.

If you really need to be able to attune to more than three items, at least have your players choose between one powerful item and two less powerful items. That is, keep the limit of three, but say that the limit is "three powerful items", but up to six less-powerful items if you prefer that instead.

I have always seen this as an attempt to get rid of the golf bag of martial wrath problem that I've seen in earlier versions (2e because of drops and 3e because of shopping). Having seen a player with a 2e fighter who had two hirelings to carry his swords (and the cleric's collection of maces, a fine example of the party working together!) anything that brings that down is OK in my book.
I'd agree that if the limit is a problem, scrap it rather than fiddle with the actual number. Otherwise a tiered system balancing the power level (subjective) vs the power tier is necessary, but largely goes against the relative simplicity of the version, and doesn't do much more than prevent hard choices to the point where you might as well go with plan A and ditch the rule.

 

[MG.0]

Scrap attunement

I booted attunement out of my game entirely, for a variety of reasons.

1. It begs more questions than it answers, leading to the need for tortured metagame-oriented explanations and additional rule clarifications.
   
   Why 100 feet? Why 24 hours? Are other planes over 100 feet away? What about the border ethereal, but only 1 foot away? How about the Astral where time doesn't really flow? Why do I need a short rest to voluntarily break attunement? How is it affected by Time Stop, Wish, or even lesser magics? Does dispel magic break attunement? Why or why not?
   
   
2. It's a rule in search of a problem.
   
   Page 285 of the DMG gives the reason behind attunement in the section on creating a new magic item:
   
   ATTUNEMENT Decide whether the item requires a character to be attuned to it to use its properties. Use these rules of thumb to help you decide:
   
   
   • If having all the characters in a party pass an item around to gain its lasting benefits would be disruptive, the item should require attunement.
   • If the item grants a bonus that other items also grant, it's a good idea to require attunement so that characters don't try to collect too many of those items.
   
   
   The problem with this is there are virtually no items in the DMG requiring attunement which fit this criteria. For example wearing multiple suits of armor is not really possible, and passing a suit around is going to be more comical than abusive, especially if you note the times for donning and doffing armor in the PHB: "Keep that owlbear busy for just another minute and I'll be right with you!"
   
   The first bullet point can be addressed by fixing the item in question. A good example is the Periapt of Wound Closure: "While you wear this pendant, you stabilize whenever you are dying at the start of your turn. In addition, whenever you roll a Hit Die to regain hit points, double the number of hit points it restores." The first use I wouldn't see as an abuse even if characters are passing it around (Someone still has to move the thing between all those dying characters!). The second ability can easily be fixed by assuming you actually need to wear it the entire rest, and perhaps even limiting the number of uses per day. There is no need for an attunement type rule to deal with this.
   
   The second bullet point is better served by a narrower rule that limits the number of items which can increase a specific ability, e.g. only two items at a time can be used to boost strength. This is simpler to manage, rationalize, and has tradition on its side (the two magic ring limit from early AD&D). I haven't seen any problems necessitating me to implement such a rule, however.
   
   
3. It hurts dramatic storytelling in bizarre ways.
   
   For example, let's say we have a powerful wizard. Let's call him Gandalf (no relation). We'll also assume he has been captured by an enemy wizard we will name Saruman (also no relation). Let us further assume Saruman has confiscated Gandalf's staff and kept it 101 feet away from him for over 24 hours, or perhaps attuned to it himself. Gandalf, being the resourceful wizard that he is, manages to escape and Saruman gives chase. Gandalf runs through the corridors and into Saruman's private laboratory, where his eyes are drawn to the staff he has possessed for nearly 100 years. He smiles, grabs it, points it at the door just as Saruman enters and...dies horribly because he can't use the staff. Stupid doesn't even begin to describe that.
   
   
4. It isn't needed.
   
   Overall I feel attunement smacks of a video game rule, where limits must be enforced in the system, because there is no other option. In D&D we are lucky enough to have flexible thinking DM's (at least some of us, anyway). If as a DM you like giving out lots of magic items, that's fine and shouldn't be a problem. Just make sure you think about things on a practical level: How quickly can a character really get a sword out of a big bag containing ten or more? How does the bag affect the PC when he climbs that frayed rope to avoid certain death? How about swimming across that fast moving river? Most players will eventually see the need for travelling light, and if the items are left at the character's home, are they really hurting your game? If you still think they are, consider the need to pay for security for such a valuable trove left unattended for long periods to prevent the inevitable theft attempts. If you have players using followers as mobile bags of holding, make sure you consider the follower's point of view. They are being asked to go into highly dangerous situations while dragging around a veritable king's ransom in priceless magical artifacts. Surely the character would be the subject of endless bandit/assassin attacks by greedy people seeking such a haul. All but the most dedicated followers would consider slipping away one night and living like a king himself on some far away island after selling all the PC's loot. Don't let your players run roughshod over you. Think about it and things become clear. Attunement simply isn't needed, and the fewer special case rules like it, the better the game tends to be.

 

[Celtavian]

I would not let a rule such as attunement supersede a great bit of story.

I don't follow attunement as closely as others. I like to think of it as a period of getting to know an item including how to best use it. An item being 101 feet away from you for over 24 hours causing you to lose attunement is just bad fiction. Can you imagine Excalibur or Anduril losing their abilities after being away from Arthur or Aragorn for extended periods of time. Heck no. I'm not playing too tightly with attunement other than using it to keep magic items limited in number and important.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I would not let a rule such as attunement supersede a great bit of story.

I don't follow attunement as closely as others. I like to think of it as a period of getting to know an item including how to best use it. An item being 101 feet away from you for over 24 hours causing you to lose attunement is just bad fiction. Can you imagine Excalibur or Anduril losing their abilities after being away from Arthur or Aragorn for extended periods of time. Heck no. I'm not playing too tightly with attunement other than using it to keep magic items limited in number and important.

Yeah, I'm the same way. I'd completely forgotten about the 100-foot rule until it was mentioned on this thread.

You also want to look for ways to make attunement work for the story. The fighter in my campaign has what's basically a life-stealing pike. About a month ago, he was dropped in battle. The rogue/barbarian dove in, picked up the spear, and stabbed his attacker. I ruled that because it was attuned to the fighter, it still healed the fighter -- he was up and back in the fight. Dramatic save enabled by the concept of attunement, if not the exact mechanics.

 

[Celtavian]

Yeah, I'm the same way. I'd completely forgotten about the 100-foot rule until it was mentioned on this thread.

You also want to look for ways to make attunement work for the story. The fighter in my campaign has what's basically a life-stealing pike. About a month ago, he was dropped in battle. The rogue/barbarian dove in, picked up the spear, and stabbed his attacker. I ruled that because it was attuned to the fighter, it still healed the fighter -- he was up and back in the fight. Dramatic save enabled by the concept of attunement, if not the exact mechanics.

Story over rules is a selling point of 5E I'm all in on. I love watching shows like Critical Role showing how story-focused DMs run a far more interesting game than mechanic-focused DMs. Good DMs suck the players into the story the players are participating in over mechanical encounters. Winging it using one shot rulings that enhance story make the game far more interesting and memorable.

 

[jgsugden]

Attunement is a lot like concentration. They're limits to keep the PCs in a certain bandwidth of power. If you allow PCs to exceed these limits, they potentially become more powerful than the game is designed to allow them to be. This results in overpowered PCs, battles that are too easy, DMs upping the difficulty to counter, a PC getting a bit unlucky on a few rolls against these overpowered foes (or overpowered foes that line up their offense against defensive abilities of the PCs that are not overpowered) and eventually a TPK with players angry that the DM "randomly" threw an "unfair" challenge against them. These boards are ripe with these tales of woe....

The game was designed to work under certain constraints. The reason for those constraints is sometimes obvious - sometimes not. Both concentration and attunement limitations are there for a really good reason.

 

[MG.0]

Dramatic save enabled by the concept of attunement, if not the exact mechanics.

Nice counter example to my storytelling example.

...but that certainly isn't attunement's raison d'être, which is to limit magic item counts.

I find no real need for the rule, and very little in the way of plausible in-game reasons to distinguish why one item requires attunement and another doesn't. Even the items in the DMG seem to apply it haphazardly. Anytime I can make things more fluid and increase the number of potential dramatic scenarios without breaking the game I'll make the change, and I think removing attunement does that. If you like, you could even give some magic items the ability to 'link' to a character like you described without resorting to an an overarching rule limiting magic item count, like some kind of video game inventory slot system.

Just my take on things. I'm not trying to prescribe what anyone else should or should not do.

About me: I'm really new here, but have been playing D&D since 1980, sort of. I stopped playing around the mid-90's until starting back up with 5th edition early this year. Glanced at 4th edition books a few times over the last few years and had to shake my head in disappointment. One thing you will never see from me is arguing the intent of the rules as written, acronymed RAW as seems to be the custom here. I've played too long to care what the exact wording of the rules are. Too many carelessly worded, ill-thought out or misprinted rules combined with unforseen interactions and loopholes has left me where I only care about two things:

1. Does the rule help create good stories.
2. Does it have internal consistency, i.e. is it 'believeable' in the context of the game.

Beyond that, the rules should be as few and as non-prescriptive as possible.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I find no real need for the rule, and very little in the way of plausible in-game reasons to distinguish why one item requires attunement and another doesn't.

I think that depends on the story of the particular item. The other major magic item my players' party possesses (well, possessed -- currently it's in the hoard of a green dragon upon whom they are plotting bloody revenge) is an ancient imperial scepter. To attune to it, they had to cobble together a jerry-rigged anointment ceremony and convince the item that one of them was the emperor. By the item's nature, it wouldn't work for just anyone.

If you like, you could even give some magic items the ability to 'link' to a character like you described without resorting to an an overarching rule limiting magic item count, like some kind of video game inventory slot system.

Sure, but I think this is something of a tomayto-tomahto dispute. You speak of removing attunement but then adding this special linking mechanic, but that sounds to me the same as as giving out mostly items that don't use attunement and only a select few that do.

 

[MG.0]

Attunement is a lot like concentration. They're limits to keep the PCs in a certain bandwidth of power. If you allow PCs to exceed these limits, they potentially become more powerful than the game is designed to allow them to be.
...
The game was designed to work under certain constraints. The reason for those constraints is sometimes obvious - sometimes not. Both concentration and attunement limitations are there for a really good reason.

...and I find the mechanism (attunement) used to prescribe those limits to be clunky and ineffective. I am perfectly capable of running a balanced campaign without resorting to a rule I feel limits characters in arbitrary (almost video-game like) ways.

If you feel I have overlooked some critical aspect of attunement, please enlighten me. Seriously, it is possible for anyone to overlook almost anything. But please don't resort to "don't question, because the designers know best", because you know what? They usually don't. They're under pressure to produce a commercial product in a fixed time-frame. That is not conducive to finding the optimum design. D&D has had an almost organic growth for nearly 40 years and it is STILL carrying some bizarre baggage that should have been dropped long ago, while adding some new things which make you scratch your head and wonder if the author has ever even played the game before. Overall I really enjoy D&D (wouldn't play it otherwise), but none of it is gospel.