D&D 5E Attunement question

[Tom Bagwell]

Did the player have a choice in getting the arm?

What happens if he choose to not use an attunement slot? Does his arm fall off, or something?

Generally, if the GM does something to a character without player choice, the GM probably shouldn't add costs to that.

Agreed. That's why I decided to make sword and hand one item. He chose the sword...the hand was a surprise.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The real point of attunement is to put a cap on the number of items you can use, right? In this case, seems fair - pretty powerful item.

Or the point is to prevent players from passing the item around, in which case: it's overkill.

To @Tom Bagwell : are you likely to give any player more than three items that require attunement? If no, then it's ultimately moot and therefore you shouldn't nerf the item by increasing the cost to use - it'll feel bad and that'll be the only impact.

If you do plan on giving out 4+ attunement items per player, then maybe.

 

[ECMO3]

I'm trying to decide if I should require attunement for an item. A Paladin in my group recently obtained a holy sword (that he attuned to). During that process, his hand and forearm were transformed into a living gemlike material and which now provides certain bonuses and abilities (+2 to Strength for uses involving just the hand; once per day, a hit that would take him to 0 HP will take him to 1; and 3x/day if an ally within 30' takes a critical hit, it becomes just a normal hit). So, it's powerful in its own right...but there's no way anyone but the Paladin will be able to use it. So, is Attunement really necessary?

yes

 

[Benjamin Olson]

If it were an official item that altered an attribute score it would be an attunement item. That needn't determine what you do with it, but to the extent you are wondering about the official line, there you go.

As far as "other characters won't use it because it is physically attached to him", while attunement is partly about keeping something from being shared around the party for maximum use it is really less about locking something to one character than limiting the number of particularly powerful magic items each character can have. I don't see the enhancements outlined as being particularly powerful though, provided you are a stickler about the +2 strength being highly circumstantial to things associated with the one hand (I actually recommend making it a generalized +2 strength bonus, as limiting it creates a level of granular fussiness more in line with a different edition or game, but if it's the way you like to play more power to you).

If you want this transformation the Paladin underwent to be an unalloyed benefit than don't add an attunement slot. If you want it to be more of a beneficial curse than an attunement slot is appropriate as the drawback.

 

[BluejayJunior]

I would go with "requires attunement to [sword name]" to be able to use it. If the paladin ever unattunes from the sword, then arm loses it's power. Either just becoming a regular arm with no bonuses or becoming completely useless, depending on what the DM/party would find more fun.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If you don't give out many other magical items... at least not nearly enough to fill any one character's 3 attunement slots... then it doesn't matter if the sword/arm is attunable or not. If a character never acquires a fourth attunable item wherein they now have to make a choice of which one to detune from... then the "attunement" property might as well not even exist and you don't have to worry about it.

(The only other reason the attunement property might matter would be for the reason mentioned previously... to stop party members from passing around one item to all gain the benefits. If that's not an issue for your group, and you don't have any character who has reached four possible attunement items... then worrying about attunement is unnecessary.)