D&D 5E Targeting Their Attunement

[Distracted DM]

I considered it, but it felt better as a trap. (And even then, it only breaks attunement to one item...and the player chooses which one. I don't want my players following me home after the game with a baseball bat.)

If it's intended to be a challenge unique to these constructs etc. and something that's telegraphed early or that they can escape from, I don't see why not. Unless their attunement requires something really difficult to do, rather than an hour spent with the item.

 

[Rabulias]

I considered it, but it felt better as a trap. (And even then, it only breaks attunement to one item...and the player chooses which one. I don't want my players following me home after the game with a baseball bat.)

Oh yes, one at a time (probably the one used in the attack). And I would definitely allow a saving throw, as well as a visual/mental indication of what was going on ("the wand flashes, then dims as you feel your connection to it fade (or waver, if the save was made).").

 

[Stormonu]

I'd be curious to see a trap that "attaches itself" to a PC with unused attunement slots when touched or examined closely. Makes the slot temporarily unusable and it triggers some sort of trap effect (elemental damage, instant pit trap, instant falling block, unwanted teleportation, baleful polymorph, etc.) when you attempt to unattune or divest yourself of the item (I'm visualizing it as a sort of ioun stone that floats about the target). The more powerful ones not only take up a slot, but do something detrimental as well (from magic mouth to conditions such as poisoned, restrained, or even damage over time - a nasty one might paralyze). Remove curse would probably be the primary way to deactivating it without triggering it.

It could be insidious with items that offer extra attunement slots with this sort of trap in mind, especially if those extra attunement slots are keyed to favor being filled/overidden by the above traps.

 

[aco175]

I tend to not like the whole idea. It seems a gotcha to the players and seems to target the fighters more unless you are taking spells away too. That would make everyone unhappy together and might cause them to leave the dungeon altogether.

I would rather just have a free attack against me or even that I lose attunement with that item until I can re-attune.

 

[Umbran]

I don't disagree, but by level 10 the characters have a lot of powerful tools at their disposal.

Maybe, but that's not really how you judge power by CR.

 

[CleverNickName]

I tend to not like the whole idea. It seems a gotcha to the players and seems to target the fighters more unless you are taking spells away too. That would make everyone unhappy together and might cause them to leave the dungeon altogether.

Every group has a different composition, and certain monsters are going to play differently against certain groups. Like, a vampire nest is going to hit a lot different in a group that doesn't have any clerics or paladins. For my particular gaming group, we don't have a fighter at all--no barbarian, monk, or rogue, either. The closest thing we have to a "warrior" is the artificer (battle smith), so I think this will be fine. YMMV, of course.

I would rather just have a free attack against me or even that I lose attunement with that item until I can re-attune.

I'm sure my players would agree! They are perfectly comfortable with me targeting them in the usual way (attack their armor class), to affect the usual stats (their hit points), so that they can recover in the usual fashion (potions and rests). But I want this dungeon to be memorable, I want it to be different. It's the grand finale of a 10-session story arc, specifically written for the artificer.

 

[mellored]

Reminds me of the Emerald Weapon from Final Fantasy 7.

I think it's fine as long as you give enough clues for them to figure it out.

Like have a corpse with 2 attuned magic items.
And a completely destroyed corpse with 5 attuned magic items.

 

[Distracted DM]

I think you're on the right track with the whole idea. It's a unique problem for them to deal with and it demonstrates and makes use of what makes TTRPGs different from most video games- you can turn things on their head for a little bit and make the players question their assumptions and their safe strategies.

Telegraph it a little with a small early encounter and you're golden.

I guess I should add that I'll often intentionally speak out loud to let me players know things if I think it's justified and helpful. "Ok you get hit, so it's 1d10 and.. how many attunement items do you have again? 3? Ok so 1d10 plus 3d8 damage, as you feel the terrible energy coalesce and reverberate between your sword, circlet, and gauntlets."

 

[Lanefan]

I like it. Don’t forget old-school magic resistance.

Be ready for your players, especially the artificer, to absolutely hate you. And not it a friendly “rivalry” with the referee because they run the opposition sense. Most modern players freak out when things on their character sheet are messed with. And messing with their magic items is going to go over especially badly. I’d expect one or more players to rage quit when the realize what’s going on.

Seems an effective way of culling a certain sort of undesirable players...

Sounds fun though.

Yep.

@CleverNickName :

A flip side that might have already been suggested (haven't read it all yet) is that magic items found in the OLD MAGICK setting don't require attunement at all, just use as many of them as often as you like...BUT, they won't just tell you what they do; you have to trial-and-error field-test and experiment in order to get this info.

 

[CleverNickName]

Another passive for my lil' anti-magic constructs.

Ancient Resistance
This construct has advantage on all save throws to resist the effects of magic items that require attunement.

or, alternately:

Ancient Resistance (3/day)
When this construct fails a save throw, it can succeed the save throw instead if the source of the spell or effect was a magic item that requires attunement.