D&D 5E Attunement

[KarinsDad]

You said that about half of items are attunement items. I'm presuming that that holds true in your game. Which should mean that you've given out about 22-24 items in 6 levels, not counting consumables.

Not exceedingly high. It's about what Phandelver would give if it was designed for 6 or 7 PC's. But then you said that LMoP is already on the high side.

I wonder about the adventure paths. Are people seeing large numbers of magic items and having this problem?

You got me curious, so I went to the character sheets (as the instigator of 5E in our gaming group, I got the dubious task of keeping the character sheets up to date):

Bard: Ring of Frozen Moonflame (previous DM pre-DMG item), Wand of Magic Missiles, +1 studded leather
Cleric: Silver Gauntlets (previous DM pre-DMG item, adds to weapon damage), Flame of the North (Greatsword of Lifestealing from Undermountain), Broach of Shielding
Cleric/Wizard: My PC. Just brought in at the end of level 6, the new DM gave him one magic item. Ring of Mind Shielding
Druid: Red Dragonscale armor, Cloak of Protection (as DM, I allowed a new player to come in at level 5 with one item, the cloak, later on, the group gave him the armor that a different PC had been using, but attunement forced him to give it up)
Paladin: Boots of Elvenkind, +1 Platemail (note: previous DM allowed me to select a common and uncommon item for my Paladin when I started at level 5, but then she had conflicts and could no longer DM, so she took over my Paladin when I took over as DM), Rapier of Vengence (cursed item)
Ranger/Wizard: Wind Strider Boots (previous DM item pre-DMG, give minor falling and jumping ability), Orb of Levitation (3 per day), Sending Stone (previous DM item pre-DMG designed to allow PC to communicate with a specific silver dragon), Dragonguard (+1 breastplate plus a dragon breath weapon save advantage from LMoP), Orb of Dragonkind (attunement, artifact from DMG handed out by me as part of the storyline)
Rogue: Headband of Intellect (attunement forced another player to give this up), Avarnist (previous DM pre-DMG item, magic silver dagger with two spells), Bracers of Defense, Wand of Winter (from HotDQ)

Edit: Forgot cursed rapier.

Attunement items are bolded.

So our group (just made level 7) has 21 magic items for 7 PCs, 14 of which require attunement (67% which is close to the 56% of the DMG). We actually had 22 magic items, but the Fighter PC (new DM's previous PC) left the group with 2 magic weapons and my PC came in with a semi-worthless magic ring.

As a special note, most of these items hardly affect the game at all.

The items that have actually made any real difference are: Silver Gauntlets, Avarnist, Wand of Magic Missiles. Sure, the armor items added in +1 to AC and that helps a little and the Paladin can stealth in plate, but we have two magic weapons that gives +1 to hit and +1 damage (Avarnist and Rapier). Most of the other items have rarely come into play, even the Artifact (solid heal once per day plus Detect Magic, the scrying has come in handy once, but the Call Evil Dragons power is never going to be used until real high level). And the Wand of Winter has only cast one spell (mostly because that player has to work, so he gets to sessions 2/3rds of the way in each time).


And, that's the problem with the attunement rules. We could strip our PCs of all of these items and it would only lower their overall effectiveness a little bit. Many 5E DMs might look at the numerical list above and say "Wow, your group has a lot of magic stuff.". Meh. They are there for fun. They do not break the game. But, the attunement rules are getting in the way of our fun. We already house ruled them once. The new DM might just get rid of the attunement rules completely.

 

[I'm A Banana]

we have only a couple attunement items and our LMoP campaign which, is 3rd level, and has found exactly 1 (the glass staff) attunement item. I'm not sure where you are getting all these attunement items from LMoP. We certainly never found them. Granted, I'm a player in both campaigns, so, maybe we missed a lot, but, I don't think so.

There are a grand total of 3 items in LMoP that require attunment. The staff of defense is one of 'em.

And, it should be noted, LMoP has a pretty big boatload of magic - mostly of the consumable type, but there's multiple magic weapons and staves and even a ring, some gauntlets, a wand...It's probably more magic-rich than your typical random rolling will get you over the course of 4 levels.

 

[Gillywonka]

The new DM might just get rid of the attunement rules completely.

Good idea. If a rule doesn't make sense for your group, is silly or takes away from the fun, get rid of it.

 

[Casanovious]

While what you say is true, the game has been evolving to become better.

This is a rule designed to adjust how the game is played at tables and has nothing to do with making the game better. It's just an arbitrary line drawn in the sand in an attempt to prevent a Christmas tree problem that may or may not exist at any given table. It's an attempt to get the entire D&D gaming community to "play in a certain way". It has nothing to do with balance between races or classes (like your human wizard example), or to balance spells / supernatural abilities (like your 3E type example).

It is similar to your ring example in that it is number of magic items per PC related, but instead of allowing a given DM to decide (and granted, I know that any DM can houserule any core rule that s/he does not like), it thrusts a limit on the entire gaming community as the status quo.

5E could have come out without any attunement rules at all and the game would have just been fine. They are not necessary (and for me as a DM, not wanted). They just take up space in the rules for no good reason. IMO. A dumb metarule with no valid reason for its existence.

I know this is an old thread but I found myself in a tiny minority. I love the concept but I detest the way this mechanic is implemented. It feels pointlessly arbitrary and it is not lore friendly. And, IMO, shame on the DM that needs other than to prevent characters from passing around a weapon that heals on a killing blow. I love to immerse my players. I can see a sentient melee weapon not allowing a character to attune it while he is attuned another melee weapon. But I don't see that weapon opposed to a shield, unless the weapon was 2-handed weapon. I feel that attuning criteira and limits should match the individual item with at least an attempt of being lore friendly. But the existing rule reminds me of the AD&D rules that a wizard can't wear armor or wield a sword. An almost dead mage, out of spells and with no weapon, is blocked from escaping by an almost destroyed zombie. The mage, in an act of desperation, grabs his fallen party members sword. DM, "You can't use that." Player: "Why not?" DM:"Because the rules say you can't" Player:"Why?" DM:"Never mind, just roll to hit." Player:"A 20!". DM,"You missed." Player, "I thought he was AC10." DM, "He is." Player, "How did I miss?" DM,"Because you are not allowed to use that weapon."

 

[Tony Vargas]

I love the concept but I detest the way this mechanic is implemented. It feels pointlessly arbitrary and it is not lore friendly.

Well, it /is/ a D&D mechanic. I mean, this is the game that brought us Vancian casting. And weapon & armor proscriptions.

But, hey, it's a 5e mechanic, so you can totally change it!

I feel that attuning criteira and limits should match the individual item with at least an attempt of being lore friendly.

That sounds cool. (You can see how they might not have gone for that, since it's kinda fuzzy and they might not want to write a distinct attunement section for each and every item, but it fits the 'rulings not rules' motto nicely).

So, think what's the mystic legalese behind attunement in your world? Chakras? Alignment? Fate? Life-energy? Item compatibility? Intersecting auras?

Then think how to model that in workable game terms. Items could be limited by the part of your body that's in contact with them when used. Or by their existential purpose. Or by their origin. Or...

For instance, in an old campaign I ran, most magic items were created in the distant past for a Grey-Elf vs Drow war (that also led to the creation of some of the races in the world, including humans & orcs). I didn't make it important which side created the item, but if I had lifted attunement from RQ back then, I might have done so. Maybe the Grey items wouldn't work for Drow, and thus wouldn't work if you attuned a Drow-made item, for instance.

 

[clearstream]

Well, it /is/ a D&D mechanic. I mean, this is the game that brought us Vancian casting. And weapon & armor proscriptions.

But, hey, it's a 5e mechanic, so you can totally change it!

As DM, you can change the mechanic of any version of any RPG. That isn't a 5e thing. The traps for new players and reasons for not doing so remain the same.

So, think what's the mystic legalese behind attunement in your world? Chakras? Alignment? Fate? Life-energy? Item compatibility? Intersecting auras?


Then think how to model that in workable game terms. Items could be limited by the part of your body that's in contact with them when used. Or by their existential purpose. Or by their origin. Or...


For instance, in an old campaign I ran, most magic items were created in the distant past for a Grey-Elf vs Drow war (that also led to the creation of some of the races in the world, including humans & orcs). I didn't make it important which side created the item, but if I had lifted attunement from RQ back then, I might have done so. Maybe the Grey items wouldn't work for Drow, and thus wouldn't work if you attuned a Drow-made item, for instance.

These seem like good considerations/ideas. I like the Grey/Drow Elf thing. That could lead into some nice narrative colour and adventure hooks.

 

[Tony Vargas]

As DM, you can change the mechanic of any version of any RPG. That isn't a 5e thing.

Absolutely is isn't just a 5e thing. But 5e is presented as a 'starting point' with the expectation you'll do so.

The traps for new players and reasons for not doing so remain the same.

IDK what you mean by traps for new players, but the reason for not modding the rules under 3.x (the cult of RAW that had grown up in the community, the desire for complex optimized builds, etc) or 4e (fear of upsetting tight mechanical balance) seem to me to no longer apply so significantly.

 

[Caliban]

There are a grand total of 3 items in LMoP that require attunment. The staff of defense is one of 'em.

There's more than 3. Off the top of my head, I recall 5 attunement items.

Two different staffs, a ring, boots, and a pair of gauntlets.

Plus at least two magical weapons, a set of magical armor, and a wand that do not require attunement, and sundry scrolls and potions.

 

[clearstream]

Absolutely is isn't just a 5e thing. But 5e is presented as a 'starting point' with the expectation you'll do so. IDK what you mean by traps for new players, but the reason for not modding the rules under 3.x (the cult of RAW that had grown up in the community, the desire for complex optimized builds, etc) or 4e (fear of upsetting tight mechanical balance) seem to me to no longer apply so significantly.

More than rule zero, eh?

I feel like there are fewer reasons to change the 5e rules than there were in previous editions. On the other hand, so long as you respect its fundamentals, 5e's rationalisation of d20 offers a more resilient base for a DM to work with. The traps for new players become clear after you've done a lot of rules modding and game design: you start to notice the value of full time designers with access to extensive playtesting. Within the scope of one DM's campaign (or even several) you'll get by perfectly fine even if you choose a less good or even broken solution because your players will only end up exploring a relatively small part of the mechanical phase-space and you'll be able to apply reasonableness as you go along.

 

[Tony Vargas]

More than rule zero, eh?

Yes, much more so. Not because it's a stronger assertion than rule 0 (though I'd say it's a more pervasive one), but because the community took it to heart, this time around.

The traps for new players become clear after you've done a lot of rules modding and game design: you start to notice the value of full time designers with access to extensive playtesting.

I do see that value. I'm still fuzzy on what you mean by traps, though. Not the usual CharOp or Timmeh-Card sense, I take it?

Also, the mechanism the OP is thinking of messing with involves magic items, which are not an assumed part of progression. So that's heading out of the exhaustively-playtested zone, anyway.