D&D 5E Magic item attunement, like-dislike?

[The Grassy Gnoll]

If you must ensure the tree is festooned with baubles, you could rule:

1 head (hat, cap, helm, circlet, eyepatch)
1 body (eg armour, robe, belt)
1 limbs (eg bracers, gauntlets, boots)
2 weapons

That's 5 total, but with a sense check built in so you don't overload and players need to think about things.

I don't think there are any items that require attainment that are not worn or carried from memory (may well be wrong), on which case you could add 1 x Stowed or swap 1xStowed for each slot instead.

 

[ThirdWizard]

It has worked very well in my current campaign that is 10th level at the moment. It's led to some interesting choices and magic items being used by PCs who would normally not have them because others have all their item attunement slots full.

Going above 10th, I think it might be too low, but I don't have any playtest data to back that up. I might try Proficiency Bonus # of attunement slots, since that will bump up the number at higher levels, although I do worry that it gets too high. I'd probably rather it max out at 5 than 6, and only then at very high levels.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I like it, and I'm all for the three item limit. But like anything, it's a dial. Make if five in your campaign, if you like. Or make it three, but increase it by one at levels 10 and 20.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I like the idea. Like others, I think perhaps it needs to increase at higher levels, but I think it's very easy to adjust for a specific campaign/group.

I've found the rule promotes creative usage of items and some more tactical choices on the part of my players. But I've always been a fan of keeping the magic items to a minimum.

 

[Jaelommiss]

From my perspective attunement is used to tell DMs how abundant magic items are designed to be in 5e. If it wasn't there then I expect that I would have given out far more magic items (more in line with older editions) than 5e is made for.

Now that I know to use fewer items than previously I have the option of altering or even removing attunement entirely. Even if I dislike the concept of attunement* I recognize that it was very helpful in teaching me how reward players in 5e.


*For the record I like attunement, but think that it should be based off of Intelligence, with the details of an attuned magic item occupying a portion of the wielder's mind in a similar fashion to prepared spells under a Vancian system. At least that way it makes some level of sense from a narrative perspective.

 

[Illithidbix]

I like attunement myself.

However I do find it strange that "normal" +1/+2/+3 magic armour, shields and weapons don't require attunement, despite some being very rare or legendary items.
When weaker but more flavourable weapons, shields and armour do require attunement.

It's not exactly hard to house rule that +2 and +3 magic weapons, shields and armour require attunement, but it seems odd this isn't already written in.

 

[thalmin]

I like attainment limits. In my campaign, even more items require attunement, but most items requiring attunement can give some benefits without being attuned. Also, more items have prerequisites, including class, race, and/or level.

 

[Horwath]

I like attunement myself.

However I do find it strange that "normal" +1/+2/+3 magic armour, shields and weapons don't require attunement, despite some being very rare or legendary items.
When weaker but more flavourable weapons, shields and armour do require attunement.

It's not exactly hard to house rule that +2 and +3 magic weapons, shields and armour require attunement, but it seems odd this isn't already written in.

they do not require attunement because in their respective power level they are weakest of items.
And they are considered "slot filler" after you have your aloted 3 atuned items.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Any (balanced) rule that makes players have to make tactical or strategic choices is a plus. That's exactly what attunement does, and it's why I like it.

I don't object to the limit being dependent on a stat, but as noted upthread Charisma doesn't work since it's the prime req of so many classes. Curiously, in 5e the dump stat of choice seems to be Intelligence, and a case could be made to let the Int modifier adjust the number of magic items you could attune (1+INT, min. 1).

But the limit of 3 is perfectly fine, and encourages more strategic play.

 

[xuriel]

For the over-the-top, dual-implement-wielding, high magic campaign I'm DMing next, I'll probably drop the attunement limit altogether.