D&D 5E Attunement

[Celtavian]

Just looked through the DMG. Absolutely none of the potions, elixirs, or oils in there require concentration.

The potion of animal friendship says that it grants you the ability to cast a spell. That spell doesn't require concentration.

Of the other potions, all of the ones that name a spell (rather than describing a non-spell effect) specify that you gain the effect of the spell--not that you can cast it. The ones that give you the effects of spells that would require concentration even go out of the way to say that concentration isn't required.*

Gaining the effect of a spell is not a game element that requires concentration on your part, unless you are casting the spell in some way, or unless something specifically says it does.

*The sole exception is the potion of mind reading which grants you the effects of a concentration spell without spelling out that you don't have to concentrate. Given the way the rules work, that is likely a mistaken omission of the redundant "no concentration required" statement.

Only one potion? I thought there were more. Potions are quite powerful, much more than ever before. I hand them out sparingly due to their power level.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Glad to hear they are actually worth using in this edition. Now...the question still remains whether they will actually get used in the groups I play in, or are they Too Awesome To Use.

 

[S'mon]

*The sole exception is the potion of mind reading which grants you the effects of a concentration spell without spelling out that you don't have to concentrate. Given the way the rules work, that is likely a mistaken omission of the redundant "no concentration required" statement.

It's hardly surprising that you have to concentrate on mind reading to read minds!

 

[Tormyr]

The attunement limit has helped keep the PC power level in check when converting the 3.5 Age of Worms.

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't use it, there are a number of problems with it in addition to the number limit. Losing attunement on death, for instance, causes all sorts of problems with hoop jumping and record keeping that 5E was supposed to try to avoid.

If you don't want to use the attunement rule, that's fine, but "losing attunement on death" is in my opinion not a strong enough reason by itself.

I personally do not believe "battlefield resurrection" should leave the target "unattuned" to her items. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

So, let's fix this...:

The DMG states "Your attunement to an item ends when the item has been more than 100 feet away from you for 24 hours and when you die."

Change this to "Your attunement to an item ends when the item has been more than 100 feet away from you for 24 hours. Being dead counts as being more than 100 feet away." and we should be golden.

Regards,

 

[CapnZapp]

The whole attunement thing seems artificial and forced, and designed for a specific style of D&D. So, I'm looking for some suggestions on how to up the number without going too crazy over it. My first thought is to have the number of max attuned items equal to the proficiency bonus. That way, 2 to 6 based on PC level.

Any other thoughts on how to handle it?

The limit of three IS based on assumptions, so yes, if your game significantly deviates from those assumptions, changing that limit is perfectly reasonable.

Having said that, I think the most interesting solutions involve some sort of trade-off. After all, why is the limit there? To add interesting choices to the game, of course. To add friction to what otherwise would have been a no-brainer of a choice.

Just increasing the limit does nothing to make it interesting, and in the final analysis, it just sets you on the path ending with removing the limit altogether. But sure, if your players are awash in items, then perhaps a limit of four, or six, makes sense.

But I would have to say that as a general solution (leaving your personal campaign for a moment) it isn't all that satisfactory. Making you choose between one item of great power, or more items of lesser power, on the other hand, would keep the pressure up while still offer a compromise to let items see use.

So let's fix this

(cont'd)

 

[CapnZapp]

The DMG states "A creature can be attuned to no more than three magic items at any given time"

Let's interpret this as "A creature can be attuned to no more than three powerful magic items at any given time"

and add "A creature can attune to two items of lesser power in place of attuning to one powerful item".

Then, all we need to do is define "powerful" and "lesser power". I suggest tying this to the tiers of play. And the DMG already contains all the guidance we need - on page 135.

All this means:

• For a tier I character (level 1-4) a powerful magic item is Rare or higher. Common and uncommon items are considered to be of lesser power to you.
• For a tier II character (level 5-10) a powerful magic item is Very Rare or higher. Common, uncommon and rare items are considered to be of lesser power to you.
• For a tier III character (level 11-16) a powerful magic item is Legendary or higher. Common, uncommon, rare and very rare items are considered to be of lesser power to you.
• For a tier IV character (level 17+) only Artifacts count as powerful magic items. Common through legendary items are considered to be of lesser power to you.

So a tenth level character could have three Very Rare items attuned, for example. Or one Very Rare, one Legendary, and one Artefact - items of those rarities all count as "powerful" for a tier II character.
This houserule does not prevent you the DM from giving a 1st-level character that Ring of Invisibility!

Alternatively, she could give up one of those items to attune two Rare items instead. Or she could give up on "powerful" items altogether, and instead attune up to six Rare and Uncommon items. At least until she levels into the next tier of play!


As you can see, the number of items is the same as the proficiency bonus suggestion: six items at the most. But. There's a trade-off to be made. A (hopefully interesting) choice. For all levels, not just the highest ones.

 

[MacMathan]

As far as potions go, may I suggest handing out less than the random rolls indicate if it is getting in the way of your groups fun? Also page 140 in the DMG has a neat rules option for potion miscibility mishaps.

 

[tom.zunder]

It's been a perfectly fine rule and counters the collect and discard tendency in some games. But this is your game and you like more items. So. Drop the rule. But remember, one you open Pandora's box then you don't shut it again. So maybe just try reducing the incidence of items... But it is your game, and I suggest that rather than fiddling with it you simply turn it off or on and get on with the awesome.

 

[Mephista]

Just looked through the DMG. Absolutely none of the potions, elixirs, or oils in there require concentration.

The potion of animal friendship says that it grants you the ability to cast a spell. That spell doesn't require concentration.

Of the other potions, all of the ones that name a spell (rather than describing a non-spell effect) specify that you gain the effect of the spell--not that you can cast it. The ones that give you the effects of spells that would require concentration even go out of the way to say that concentration isn't required.*

Gaining the effect of a spell is not a game element that requires concentration on your part, unless you are casting the spell in some way, or unless something specifically says it does.

*The sole exception is the potion of mind reading which grants you the effects of a concentration spell without spelling out that you don't have to concentrate. Given the way the rules work, that is likely a mistaken omission of the redundant "no concentration required" statement.

Sage Advice disagrees - http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/02/04/potion-and-concentration/