Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MG.0" data-source="post: 6675121" data-attributes="member: 6799436">Scrap attunementI booted attunement out of my game entirely, for a variety of reasons.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> It begs more questions than it answers, leading to the need for tortured metagame-oriented explanations and additional rule clarifications.     Why 100 feet? Why 24 hours?  Are other planes over 100 feet away? What about the border ethereal, but  only 1 foot away? How about the Astral where time doesn't really flow? Why do I need a short rest to voluntarily break  attunement? How is it affected by Time Stop, Wish, or even lesser magics? Does dispel magic break attunement? Why or why not?             </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">  It's a rule in search of a problem.     Page 285 of the DMG gives the reason behind attunement in the section on creating a new magic item: ATTUNEMENT Decide whether the item requires a character to be attuned to it to use its properties. Use these rules of thumb to help you decide:     <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If having all the characters in a party pass an item around to gain its lasting benefits would be disruptive, the item should require attunement.     </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If the item grants a bonus that other items also grant, it's a good idea to require attunement so that characters don't try to collect too many of those items.     </li> </ul>     The problem with this is there are virtually no items in the DMG requiring attunement which fit this criteria. For example wearing multiple suits of armor is not really possible, and passing a suit around is going to be more comical than abusive, especially if you note the times for donning and doffing armor in the PHB: "Keep that owlbear busy for just another minute and I'll be right with you!"     The first bullet point can be addressed by fixing the item in question. A good example is the Periapt of Wound Closure: "While you wear this pendant, you stabilize whenever you are dying at the start of your turn. In addition, whenever you roll a Hit Die to regain hit points, double the number of hit points it restores." The first use I wouldn't see as an abuse even if characters are passing it around (Someone still has to move the thing between all those dying characters!). The second ability can easily be fixed by assuming you actually need to wear it the entire rest, and perhaps even limiting the number of uses per day. There is no need for an attunement type rule to deal with this.     The second bullet point is better served by a narrower rule that limits the number of items which can increase a specific ability, e.g. only two items at a time can be used to boost strength. This is simpler to manage, rationalize, and has tradition on its side (the two magic ring limit from early AD&D). I haven't seen any problems necessitating me to implement such a rule, however.             </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> It hurts dramatic storytelling in bizarre ways.     For example, let's say we have a powerful wizard. Let's call him Gandalf (no relation). We'll also assume he has been captured by an enemy wizard we will name Saruman (also no relation). Let us further assume Saruman has confiscated Gandalf's staff and kept it 101 feet away from him for over 24 hours, or perhaps attuned to it himself. Gandalf, being the resourceful wizard that he is, manages to escape and Saruman gives chase. Gandalf runs through the corridors and into Saruman's private laboratory, where his eyes are drawn to the staff he has possessed for nearly 100 years. He smiles, grabs it, points it at the door just as Saruman enters and...dies horribly because he can't use the staff. Stupid doesn't even begin to describe that.             </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> It isn't needed.     Overall I feel attunement smacks of a video game rule, where limits  must be enforced in the system, because there is no other option. In D&D we are lucky enough to have flexible thinking DM's (at least some of us, anyway). If as a DM you like giving out lots of magic items, that's fine and shouldn't be a problem. Just make sure you think about things on a practical level: How quickly can a character really get a sword out of a big bag containing ten or more? How does the bag affect the PC when he climbs that frayed rope to avoid certain death? How about swimming across that fast moving river? Most players will eventually see the need for travelling light, and if the items are left at the character's home, are they really hurting your game? If you still think they are, consider the need to pay for security for such a valuable trove left unattended for long periods to prevent the inevitable theft attempts. If you have players using followers as mobile bags of holding, make sure you consider the follower's point of view. They are being asked to go into highly dangerous situations while dragging around a veritable king's ransom in priceless magical artifacts. Surely the character would be the subject of endless bandit/assassin attacks by greedy people seeking such a haul. All but the most dedicated followers would consider slipping away one night and living like a king himself on some far away island after selling all the PC's loot. Don't let your players run roughshod over you. Think about it and things become clear. Attunement simply isn't needed, and the fewer special case rules like it, the better the game tends to be. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />   </li> </ol></blockquote>

Verification