D&D 5E Attunement

[MG.0]

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.

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.

The scepter sounds fun, although I would argue that item user restrictions are a separate issue entirely, especially for intelligent or storied items. Your story even indicates that you didn't have the character simply spend a short rest with the item - as per attunement rules. So I would argue attunement wasn't necessary to have the exact same scenario play out as it did.

As for a 'linking' mechanic. It sounds like attunement but isn't really. The reason attunement exists is to place a limit of three attunable items on any given character and to slow down (through the required short rest) the switching of items. A pike that steals life and heals a character who has forged a connection to the item as opposed to any random person picking it up is a very specific thing, even if the attunement rule can generate a similar effect (and only due to your slight bending since a strict interpretation certainly would have prevented the barbarian from using it as a magical weapon at all). Only a very few of the items that are marked with attunement in the DMG could work thematically the way your pike did. It might even be worth creating a class of items that worked like that and you could even call it attunement, but the attunement rule is a larger and more prescriptive rule than that. Remove the three item limit and allow characters to use any item they have previously used reagrdless of attunement (no rest needed), and see how many items in the DMG still make any sense to have attunement as a property. Very few. The distinction may be a subtle one, but I think it is important.

 

[Ristamar]

There's still a handful of "video gamey" aspects in 5e, like superiority dice. Attunement is a governor on character abilities in a similar manner, though it's also arguably serves to protect the DM from him/herself (particularly the less experienced ones). I can understand why it might be a nuisance for those that desire more absolute control. It's a requirement that should probably be tweaked and applied on a campaign specific basic rather than from a general list.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I guess I just don't see the mechanic as unduly restrictive. It's not a hard limitation on items. It's mentioned nowhere I can find in the PHB. It's just in the DMG, and even many of the magic items in there don't use it at all. A DM could run a campaign strictly by the book and still never have it come up. Seems to me like a pretty ideal example of a modular mechanic, even if it isn't explicitly presented that way.

 

[MG.0]

I guess I just don't see the mechanic as unduly restrictive. It's not a hard limitation on items.

It's not horribly restrictive. I just see no real value in the rule that can't also be solved in simpler, less prescriptive ways. It is a hard limit on items which use attunement.

It's mentioned nowhere I can find in the PHB.

For completeness, it is listed in the PHB in the description of the Greater Restoration, Identify, and Remove Curse spells. Interestingly, attunement is pressed into double duty as the mechanism for cursed items in the DMG. Funnily enough the DMG only says a cursed attunement can't be broken voluntarily using the short rest, but it says nothing about the time/distance limit or attunement by another individual. A naive reading would seem to indicate you can remove a curse from someone by taking the item away from them for a day, or tricking someone else into attuning to it. Hardly seems to fit the spirit of the rules though.

It's just in the DMG, and even many of the magic items in there don't use it at all. A DM could run a campaign strictly by the book and still never have it come up. Seems to me like a pretty ideal example of a modular mechanic, even if it isn't explicitly presented that way.

I'm not sure of the percentage, but it seems a decent number of the items use it. There doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason as to which items require it though. I'm not sure what you mean by a modular mechanic, unless you mean it is easy to ignore without damaging the game around it, in which case I agree.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Yes, that's what I mean.

 

[jgsugden]

...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. ...

A better exercise is for you to look at the reasons it is in the game. The tone of your post doesn't scream out that you're going to be open to ideas expressed in a quick forum post. I'd consider looking at what mechanics related to items from 4E were dropped, but had a role that is similarly addressed by attunement. Look at the differences between those mechanics. Then, look at character design as a total concept in 5E and see how the 5E item mechanic fits into the new constructed whole. Look at recommendations for treasure distribution in 5E, and look at the differences between attuned items in general and non-attuned items in general (while noting that the balance decision on some of them does seem off, there are general trends).

The limitation of 3 items that attune serves a good role. It has elegance and is far from arbitrary.

 

[keterys]

There's still a handful of "video gamey" aspects in 5e, like superiority dice.

It's really not very video gamey. I'd say it's very board and dice gamey, followed by fairly tabletop RPG-y.

 

[Ristamar]

It's really not very video gamey. I'd say it's very board and dice gamey, followed by fairly tabletop RPG-y.

Semantics aside, it's a dissociative mechanic that doesn't make much "real world" sense. The same could be said of most non-magical abilities tied to a short/long rest.

 

[MG.0]

A better exercise is for you to look at the reasons it is in the game. The tone of your post doesn't scream out that you're going to be open to ideas expressed in a quick forum post. I'd consider looking at what mechanics related to items from 4E were dropped, but had a role that is similarly addressed by attunement. Look at the differences between those mechanics. Then, look at character design as a total concept in 5E and see how the 5E item mechanic fits into the new constructed whole. Look at recommendations for treasure distribution in 5E, and look at the differences between attuned items in general and non-attuned items in general (while noting that the balance decision on some of them does seem off, there are general trends).

Pretty much all I do as a DM when looking at rules is try to discern why they exist and if they are in fact "good rules". I am always open to a serious discussion and welcome any thoughts you have on the matter. I have looked at the items in the DMG in depth (many of them have changed very little or not at all since 1st edition). I'm also very well aware of how character construction and advancement is handled in 5th edition. I fail to see the relevance of 4th edition, since I am not playing it. I think much of 4th edition was a mistake anyway.

The limitation of 3 items that attune serves a good role. It has elegance and is far from arbitrary.

I disagree, and that's OK. I'm not trying to prove my way is the 'one true way' or anything like that. I have given specific examples of why I feel attunement is arbitrary and unnecessary, and I have seen no counter examples to encourage me to think otherwise. Simply stating it "serves a good role" and is elegant and "far from arbitrary" is pretty much the same as saying: "Nope, you're wrong, but I can't explain why."

If you really want to have a serious conversation abou this, let's consider some items and how they might affect the game with and without attunement. I'll give you a free pass on explaining the completely arbitrary 100 foot / 24 hour thing.

Many (but not all) worn items require attunement. Consider the Amulet of the Planes: It certainly doesn't have an ability bonus that can stack and sharing it around the party is hardly neecessary since it takes everything within 15 feet with it when travelling. So the only net effect of requiring attunement is to prevent you from using it immediately. If you have fewer then three attuned items, then a short rest will allow you to use it. If you have three already then you need two short rests, one to break attunement with an item and a second rest to attune to the amulet. How in any way does this promote game balance or character progression or anything even remotely useful?

Armor requiring attunement is even more useless. None of the magic armors requiring attunement provide stackable bonuses (in fact the only magical armors that don't require attunement DO provide stackable AC bonuses). They also aren't abusable by having characters swap them around. Attunement on these items serves no purpose other than to limit the number of other attunable items.

Eyes of Minute Seeing don't require attunement, but Eyes of The Eagle do...why? Completely arbitrary.

In fact I can't find one single example of an item that by requiring attunement prevents an otherwise exploitable condition. So we are left with the only possible reason for attunement is keeping characters from having too many magical powers at their disposal at any one time. I maintain it is a clunky solution to a non-problem.

You are free to disagree of course, but flat out saying "you're wrong, it is good" without providing any examples of why you think it is good, is completely unhelpful.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Eyes of Minute Seeing don't require attunement, but Eyes of The Eagle do...why? Completely arbitrary.

In fact I can't find one single example of an item that by requiring attunement prevents an otherwise exploitable condition. So we are left with the only possible reason for attunement is keeping characters from having too many magical powers at their disposal at any one time. I maintain it is a clunky solution to a non-problem.

There's a number of conflicting vectors that are confusing things, I feel.

There are mechanical reasons why apparently similar items might have different attunement requirements: eyes of minute seeing are not "always on" (in that players would reasonably take them on and off depending on whether one was looking up close at something), and eyes of the eagle are (in that players would reasonably always keep their advantage on perception checks active). You might not like that mechanical reason, but it's fully comprehensible.

There is a conceptual reason: previous editions, even with their slot requirements (gone here, but did you similarly complain about not enough armour slots?), still encouraged what has unhelpfully been called the Christmas tree characters, bedecked with magic helpfully bought from ubiquitous magic shops. Like it or not, that concept has been discouraged in 5e. Not removed, and not prevented; but discouraged. But it would not be right to call this a "non-problem": it has been a problem, for many tables, and discouraging it (while keeping options open for players who want that) is a design choice that was made.

There may be benefits gained from avoiding stacking bonuses, etc., but ultimately I don't see that as what's driving this. In the most helpful post in this thread so far, however, Wolf118 does show there is a logic to be extracted.

Finally, there are reasons concerning emulation. The fiction that I know, and the fantasy fiction that inspires many D&D narratives, more closely reflects the hero-with-her-single-chosen-weapon. There is, purely subjectively, a narrative purity (for want of a better term) that is reflected in a lot of fiction, which incentivizes keeping these numbers low. A rule maintains that, and lets the DM loosen restrictions whenever it's needed.

I like the attunement rule, but fundamentally (and I think this is supported by the small number of concrete examples in this thread) it is not something that is causing problems in actual play.