D&D 5E Has anyone analyzed attunement logic for individual items?

[Sword of Spirit]

When they were designing the game they had ways of deciding certain things that they haven't always made public. For instance, the category distinction between minor and major magic items that they used wasn't revealed until Xanathar's Guide to Everything. I'm assuming there was also some sort of decision that wasn't completely arbitrary as far as which items require attunement and which don't. I'm considering making some adjustments to that, but I'd really like to have a better idea as to what parameters they were using when they determined this before I make adjustments.

Has anyone reverse engineered their logic for which items require attunement and which don't?

[EDIT: I changed title to clarify that I'm interested in figuring out why they chose to make specific item X require attunement but not similar item Y. I understand the role of attunement in the game in general. Thanks!]

 

[MarkB]

There are two separate factors to attunement. First, it limits the extent to which characters can become bedecked with a multitude of magic items, and second, it creates a 'cooling-off' period between acquiring an item and actually being able to use it, preventing such an item from being quickly passed between party members so that they can each benefit from it in turn.

So, there's not just a single formula at work in determining which items should require attunement - there are two, each of which can be applied independently.

 

[the Jester]

When I am designing magic items, one major method for whether or not I am going to require attunement is asking myself, "Is it okay if the party passes this item around willy-nilly?" IOW, is it problematic if the party members can fairly instantly move the item's benefits from one pc to another?

 

[CapnZapp]

Yes 1) limit an individual and 2) limit the item (from being passed around).

There's more to it though. For example: "basic plus items" (a +1 sword, a +2 armor) does not count toward attunement. The idea is that if you "settle" for the basics, you will have your attunement slots free for other things.

This way you can tell a warrior complaining about how he can't have rings or belts or whatnot because his three slots are already spent on sword + armor + shield, that you CAN have all of it, you just have to settle for the vanilla weapons.

 

[abirdcall]

I think attunement also serves the purpose of eliminating the need to r the Identity spell.

The character just knows how to use the item after a short rest.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I updated the title to clarify that I'm looking for a more in-depth examination of why they chose to make specific item X require attunement, while apparently similar item Y doesn't, rather than the general role of attunement in the game. Thanks for the refreshers though to establish the context for analysis.

 

[aco175]

I like to make items with the option of attunement. You can have the +1 sword for free, but you need attunement for it to do the cool powers.

 

[CapnZapp]

I updated the title

Thanks.

TBH, at first I read that title (the original one) to yield the response "but there's no logic to Attunement - it is simply an in-game justification for needs that have at least as much to do with mechanical as narrative needs.

 

[Nebulous]

I like to make items with the option of attunement. You can have the +1 sword for free, but you need attunement for it to do the cool powers.

That's whats I do. If the +1 sword "Talon" can also give you hawkvision once a day, then it counts as an attunement slot. Since we are on the topic, are there items that seem like they should have attunement but don't, and vice versa?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm assuming there was also some sort of decision that wasn't completely arbitrary as far as which items require attunement and which don't.

As an un-helpful aside, I don't see what'd've been wrong with all permanent items using attunement.