D&D 5E Attunement

[clearstream]

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.

I for one took it to heart from the moment I opened an RPG book. I've heard it said one reason for D&D's popularity is the parlous debate over rules that it has caused

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.

I like your Grey/Drow Elf split concept. I can see that playing out well both mechanically and narratively within a campaign (mutatis mutandis).

Were I asked to mod the attunement rules I'd start by wanting to understand why they are there? What jobs do they do? And then I would want to understand what my goals were in lifting them? What do I want to offer players? What do I want to happen as a consequence in my campaign? What *don't* I want to happen?! I'm a big fan of then issuing rules changes as items to start with, so that I can retract those changes if I don't like them without seeming arbitrary. Thus I think I might approach the problem by adding a temporary attunement limit extension, e.g.

Potion of Lunar Attunement
Drinker gains +1 attunement limit, increasing to +2 on nights of the full moon.
A night of the empty moon ends this effect.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I for one took it to heart from the moment I opened an RPG book.

respect

I'm a big fan of then issuing rules changes as items to start with, so that I can retract those changes if I don't like them without seeming arbitrary. Thus I think I might approach the problem by adding a temporary attunement limit extension

Interesting approach for an ongoing campaign.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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

This is actually a cool idea that would fit 5e very well. It's much like other design decisions they make like how they've given each spell its own rules rather than using descriptors and types which do or don't stack, etc. I wouldn't even be very surprised if they designers considered it. One reason it would have been unlikely to make it in would just be space considerations. And design time considerations might have played in. And I think they also would have been leery of potential interactions that let someone attune 20 items because none of them said they couldn't be attuned together. The amount of effort that would have to go into examining all the potential interacting with new items probably is the biggest downside.

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."

Yes, those were dumb. It is worth pointing out that 5e items don't prohibit you from physically using them--you just can't benefit from the attunement property.

One thing I would have liked to see would have been items that have a basic property when you aren't attuned, but can grant greater properties when attuned, and have restrictions on who can attune them. In 5e, a holy avenger is a just a greatsword unless properly attuned. Having it be a +1 greatsword with some sort of minor quirk even if not attuned would be cool. I guess technically it is a magic weapon either way, so it has the property of bypassing damage resistance, and I could always add some minor property while not attuned (maybe the one that lets it shed light). But for things other than weapons, it's a lot more work to figure out how it could manifest minor properties before attunement, but such would make the items more interesting and cool.

 

[happyhermit]

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 doesn't seem like you understand how it was implemented. Attunement doesn't mean they can't pick up the weapon and use it, it just means they can't instantaneously gain it's abilities. A magical bond has to be formed with the wielder for it's true power to be manifest, and a person can only handle so many of these bonds. So, not like your example in any way and no less "logical" than a spellcaster's limited number of spells, it's magic.

 

[Pauln6]

You could tweak items so that they have weaker effects that apply if non-attuned e.g. using action economy, spell slots, hit dice, superiority dice, power/qi points, or being long/short rest abilities instead of at-will.

You could rule that classes gain extra slots for things appropriate to their class e.g. fighters gain 2 extra slots for uncommon weapons, wizards gain an extra slot for rare staves and wands etc

It is important to remember that attunement limits are intended to help limit decision paralysis that can slow the game as well as limiting power combos. Most importantly, they allow items to reflect their counterparts from legends, myths, fables, and popular culture without becoming cookie-cutter power buttons like 3e and 4e.

 

[GodofThunder9010]

Maybe I am the only DM thinking this way? As someone who played Basic rules, AD&D 1, 2 3, 3.5 and 4, I am more than happy to take anything that Wizards of the Coast comes up with a huge grain of salt. Sure plenty of dumb ideas like THAC0 predates WOTC. And quite often, they're trying to fix something that is legitimately broken. One needs look no further than 4.0 for overwhelming evidence that WOTC has some terrible ideas. So what do I think of 5.0? 5th Edition is actually pretty great. Things got simpler and simple is good. I actually LOVE the idea of attunement. It actually makes a ton of sense. It prevents the "pass me the invisibility cloak" nonsense. The idea that a PC has to bond with said item is logical and a lot of fun for me. They find a Tuning Fork of Identification. "Now sing it 100 times, once IRL." I just really hate the attunement limit. They significantly de-powered the entire catalog of magic items already. IMHO that's enough. Limiting my PC's to just three significant magical items each just seems silly to me, especially at higher levels. I have a hard time seeing a 17th level Fighter with ten attuned items, only 5 of which can be worn at the same time, as game-breaking. I'm not one to stick with the boring cookie-cutter monster templates. I'm throwing nasty stuff at them. Present campaign boss is a vampire multiclassed as fighter and chaotic evil cleric loaded up with high level magical gear. To me, it just makes sense that a centuries old vampire who subsists on killing humans is going to pick up a lot of decent gear. Why would he leave it all in a pile neatly stacked next to his coffin? Would an 800 year old lich really have no wands, no staves, no other wizard gear and such a tiny list of known spells? That just doesn't make sense to me. So my PC's are gonna need to maximize their versatility to survive what I throw at them. I think a limit of just two rings and one other item per slot usable at the same time is sufficient and sensible. I think the complexity of attuning items sufficiently prevents the exploit of people from passing around their high powered gear.

Has anyone else ignored the attunement limit of three and seen game-breaking results? I'm curious to know.

 

[CapnZapp]

It turns out it actually works. Try it for a full campaign before you dismiss it.

 

[Syntallah]

Maybe I am the only DM thinking this way? As someone who played Basic rules, AD&D 1, 2 3, 3.5 and 4, I am more than happy to take anything that Wizards of the Coast comes up with a huge grain of salt. Sure plenty of dumb ideas like THAC0 predates WOTC. And quite often, they're trying to fix something that is legitimately broken. One needs look no further than 4.0 for overwhelming evidence that WOTC has some terrible ideas. So what do I think of 5.0? 5th Edition is actually pretty great. Things got simpler and simple is good. I actually LOVE the idea of attunement. It actually makes a ton of sense. It prevents the "pass me the invisibility cloak" nonsense. The idea that a PC has to bond with said item is logical and a lot of fun for me. They find a Tuning Fork of Identification. "Now sing it 100 times, once IRL." I just really hate the attunement limit. They significantly de-powered the entire catalog of magic items already. IMHO that's enough. Limiting my PC's to just three significant magical items each just seems silly to me, especially at higher levels. I have a hard time seeing a 17th level Fighter with ten attuned items, only 5 of which can be worn at the same time, as game-breaking. I'm not one to stick with the boring cookie-cutter monster templates. I'm throwing nasty stuff at them. Present campaign boss is a vampire multiclassed as fighter and chaotic evil cleric loaded up with high level magical gear. To me, it just makes sense that a centuries old vampire who subsists on killing humans is going to pick up a lot of decent gear. Why would he leave it all in a pile neatly stacked next to his coffin? Would an 800 year old lich really have no wands, no staves, no other wizard gear and such a tiny list of known spells? That just doesn't make sense to me. So my PC's are gonna need to maximize their versatility to survive what I throw at them. I think a limit of just two rings and one other item per slot usable at the same time is sufficient and sensible. I think the complexity of attuning items sufficiently prevents the exploit of people from passing around their high powered gear.

Has anyone else ignored the attunement limit of three and seen game-breaking results? I'm curious to know.

I allow (3 + Charisma modifier) attunements, and have had no problems whatsoever. Now, I do not roll randomly for treasure. I pick and choose and place according to my design [in my best Emperor voice...]

 

[chunkosauruswrex]

You could always include magical items which don't require attunement. Other than that, you could just go with proficiency bonus or (proficiency bonus + 1). I think the playtest used Charisma as the limit, so maybe something like (Charisma modifier +2, minimum 1), although that will benefit your bard and sorcerer more than your fighter or rogue.

I think 3+proficiency bonus/2 would be appropriate. At high level you max out at 6, but this way you start with 4 and scale up to 6

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Limiting my PC's to just three significant magical items each just seems silly to me, especially at higher levels.

It doesn't exactly divide along the lines of significant/insiginificant, or even combat/utility.

A +3 weapon or armor, for example, doesn't require attunement.

Now, a good argument can be made that many of those assignments seems arbitrary and non-sensical. For example, a dragonslayer sword doesn't require attunement, while a flametongue does for some reason.

But, if it's just a matter of character power, a warrior can get themselves well equipped with no attunement at all. (Spellcasters don't fair as well.)