Quartz
Hero
You can layer this with additional powers becoming available on the PC doing certain things (q.v. Ring of Elemental Command), having a certain proficiency bonus, and so on.
D&D 5E Has anyone analyzed attunement logic for individual items?
- Thread starter Sword of Spirit
- Start date
You can layer this with additional powers becoming available on the PC doing certain things (q.v. Ring of Elemental Command), having a certain proficiency bonus, and so on.
Bacon Bits
Legend
I think the problem with that is that it punishes players for wanting to use "fun" items. If you're a Fighter and there's a magic sword, magic armor, and magic shield, you're kind of obligated to take those over fun things like a horn of blasting, want of missiles, etc. even if the martial equipment is only +1 do-nothing. Worse, at some point, you won't take any rewards unless they're essentially direct upgrades. That's just poor reward design and kind of subverts everything fun about the weird magic items.
And as much as it makes sense to say, "Well don't have +x do-nothings then," they're kind of built in to the lore of the game system at this point. Armors that are magically better at being armor, and swords that are magically better at being swords are really what people imagine when you say "magic sword" or "magic armor." That doesn't make them fun or interesting to use.
The longer I play 5e, however, the longer I'm favoring going back to the paper doll approach, perhaps just with fewer slots or a higher limit. I like the idea behind attunement, but, it's not very fun the way it's implemented. Kind of like concentration, everything interesting has attunement. It doesn't matter if an item is so niche that might as well be a potion or a scroll. It makes items like trident of fish command, a +0 trident that has 3 renewable charges of dominate beast that only work on creatures with a swim speed, compete directly with a sun blade or ring of protection or even a +1 trident.
We've played a few dungeon crawl games of 5e with rolling for items and treasure tables. On more than one occasion before 10th level we've found magic items that were fun or interesting or useful in corner situations, and nobody could use them. Everyone had items that were more powerful or that offered too much benefit to give up. It feels really stupid to roll magic items and get results that are cool, interesting and fun, and then still not use them.
Say:
2-3 weapons/rods/staves/wands/shields/misc held items/rings
2-3 clothing/body/armor/misc worn items/rings
Another option would be to say that the number of items you can attune equals your proficiency bonus. Honestly, this is probably just the easiest solution if you want more items in your games.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
Yeah, I do wish they had more (any) items that provided a basic benefit without attunement and just offered more if you attuned. Technically that does apply to magical weapons that require attunement. They are magical regardless of attunement, for purposes of damage resistance, they just don't do anything else. It would be nice if there were a bit more to it though. Then again, I'd never want to not attune an item I was permanently carrying around, seems like a real waste.
But has anyone found any sort of rules they are using to decide that, for example, a flame tongue requires attunement, while a mechanically similarly powerful +2 sword doesn't? I just don't believe they intended there to be a "cool penalty" for the more interesting items. I mean, they gave us those wonderful details to bolt on to our +x items for free on pages 142-143 to make it so that simple items become more interesting. Does flametongue require attunement because it has the added property of shedding light? You can give the +2 sword the beacon property, and now it sheds light too. Although it might be possible that items that can give you more than one benefit at a time are on the "always require attunement" list--despite not applying to the special features tables.
But has anyone found any sort of rules they are using to decide that, for example, a flame tongue requires attunement, while a mechanically similarly powerful +2 sword doesn't? I just don't believe they intended there to be a "cool penalty" for the more interesting items. I mean, they gave us those wonderful details to bolt on to our +x items for free on pages 142-143 to make it so that simple items become more interesting. Does flametongue require attunement because it has the added property of shedding light? You can give the +2 sword the beacon property, and now it sheds light too. Although it might be possible that items that can give you more than one benefit at a time are on the "always require attunement" list--despite not applying to the special features tables.
abirdcall
(she/her)
Our table uses the treasure hoards system and we have never come close to the attunement limits.
CapnZapp
Legend
No, each character gets to have exactly three "fun" items.
If you're a fighter you don't get to have three fun items like everyone else AND also a fun shield, armor and sword.
Dislike attunement all you like, but don't mistake your entitlement for a punishing design.
The only positive rules I can think of are:
A) If the item is only meant to be used by certain classes, then it must be attunable. For some reason non-attuned items aren't allowed to have that sort of restriction.
B) If a weapon can be activated, or turned on and off, perhaps with a command word or by using a charge, then it must be attuned. Because anyone not attuned wouldn't be able to activate it. This rule fails with the Wand of Magical Missiles and Dagger of Venom, among others.
However, it makes more sense to me that the default assumption is that all major items require attunement, but there are many many exceptions. My best negative rules:
1) Minor items (and some of the Common items aren't actually minor, even though some dumb editor listed them as such).
2) Expendable items that anyone can use. These are almost always minor items anyway, which might make it seem redundant. But how else to explain Gem of Brightness not being attuned?
3) Items you don't wear/wield. This includes tomes and manuals, figurines, ropes, bowls, shackles, mirrors, bags, decks, immovable rods and other tools, and vehicles like brooms and carpets. I actually find it curious that cubes, candles, and crystal balls aren't in this category, but it's believable that some DM would consider them held items.
4) Non-magical items like mithril or adamantine.
5) Simple +1 armor/weapon/shield (and +2 and +3), probably as a simple expedient so martial classes aren't screwed compared to caster classes.
5B) Weapons like Dragon Slayer, Giant Slayer, and Mace of Disruption also don't require attunement. Just speculation, but perhaps this is all so they can come as a surprise -- you thought you had a regular +1 sword all this time, and it worked like a +1 sword, but the first time you hit a dragon with it you discover (mid-battle) that it's something more. How exciting!
6) Certain individual items just get to be exceptions. Like Goggles of Night -- if the DM wants humans to be able to see, don't let the attunement rules get in the way.
I'm afraid my rules still don't cover everything. Boots of Elvenkind and Gloves of Thievery don't quite seem to fall under rule 6, it still seems odd that they aren't treated the same as other boots and gloves.
A) If the item is only meant to be used by certain classes, then it must be attunable. For some reason non-attuned items aren't allowed to have that sort of restriction.
B) If a weapon can be activated, or turned on and off, perhaps with a command word or by using a charge, then it must be attuned. Because anyone not attuned wouldn't be able to activate it. This rule fails with the Wand of Magical Missiles and Dagger of Venom, among others.
However, it makes more sense to me that the default assumption is that all major items require attunement, but there are many many exceptions. My best negative rules:
1) Minor items (and some of the Common items aren't actually minor, even though some dumb editor listed them as such).
2) Expendable items that anyone can use. These are almost always minor items anyway, which might make it seem redundant. But how else to explain Gem of Brightness not being attuned?
3) Items you don't wear/wield. This includes tomes and manuals, figurines, ropes, bowls, shackles, mirrors, bags, decks, immovable rods and other tools, and vehicles like brooms and carpets. I actually find it curious that cubes, candles, and crystal balls aren't in this category, but it's believable that some DM would consider them held items.
4) Non-magical items like mithril or adamantine.
5) Simple +1 armor/weapon/shield (and +2 and +3), probably as a simple expedient so martial classes aren't screwed compared to caster classes.
5B) Weapons like Dragon Slayer, Giant Slayer, and Mace of Disruption also don't require attunement. Just speculation, but perhaps this is all so they can come as a surprise -- you thought you had a regular +1 sword all this time, and it worked like a +1 sword, but the first time you hit a dragon with it you discover (mid-battle) that it's something more. How exciting!
6) Certain individual items just get to be exceptions. Like Goggles of Night -- if the DM wants humans to be able to see, don't let the attunement rules get in the way.
I'm afraid my rules still don't cover everything. Boots of Elvenkind and Gloves of Thievery don't quite seem to fall under rule 6, it still seems odd that they aren't treated the same as other boots and gloves.
Atunement in my campaign only binds items to certain players, means I sometimes designate items to certain players but by RP e.g. the dying priest awards his ring of regeneration to you xyz.
I do not use the given atunement rules though means I do not care if an item according to DMG needs atunement or not, I rather decide this myself.
No limit how many items one player can have, it is regulated by gameplay.
I do not use the given atunement rules though means I do not care if an item according to DMG needs atunement or not, I rather decide this myself.
No limit how many items one player can have, it is regulated by gameplay.
I agree with you on atunement RAW is no fun, see my post above. I do not agree a +2 sword is mechanically equal as a flame tongue.
A flametongue can shed light, ignite things and kill trolls. A +2 sword can not.
it is not only about dpr when it comes to compare two magic weapons.
The following is also true: in a campaign were many mobs are trolls a flame tongue is worth more than in a campaign were there are not or were there are many fire elementals
Similar Threads
