Attunement Disagreements

[Cheesegear]

1. Two players want to attune to the same magic item. How do you resolve this?
(At the time I resolved it using an opposed Charisma check and the Item "chose" who won...But in hindsight that punishes players for choices made at character creation)

2a. If Remove Curse can break attunement to a cursed magic item, can it just break attunements to non-cursed magic items, too?

2b. If so, can it be used during combat? How?

e.g; The players see a hostile creature using a magic item, the Cleric walks up to the hostile, and says 'Nope.' and ends their attunement to their magic item, preventing its use for the rest of the scenario.
- As a Touch spell; Melee Spell Attack? On hit the target makes a Charisma saving throw?

[Captain Cap]

1. Two players want to attune to the same magic item. How do you resolve this?

To attune to a magic item, you need to spend an entire short rest (1 hour) in contact with it and focusing entirely on it. I'd rule any other character attempting to attune as a distraction that simply wouldn't make the attunement possible, and so no one gets it (you could see it as the cost of not being able to find an agreement). One of the characters may try to sneak away with the item and attune in secret, though.

2a. If Remove Curse can break attunement to a cursed magic item, can it just break attunements to non-cursed magic items, too?

RAW it doesn't, and I'd say also RAI: from name and description it's pretty clear it should only affect curses (and tangentially cursed objects), and to answer also the following question, it isn't intended to be an "offense" spell.

[Mastikator]

Cursed items may not even need attunement and they always spell out how to end the curse (usually with a remove curse spell or similar). The Remove Curse spell has no effect on attunement by itself.

It's possible to make a cursed item that isn't unattuned/broken curse by the remove curse spell. Some cursed items can be removed/unattuned but it doesn't break the curse.

[Unoriginal]

1. Two players want to attune to the same magic item. How do you resolve this?

Have the people discuss until they can agree on who should have the magic item. Negotiating percentages of the involved PCs' loot shares is common.

2a. If Remove Curse can break attunement to a cursed magic item, can it just break attunements to non-cursed magic items, too?

Nope, Remove Curse removes the curse making so the wearer/wielder can't stop the attunement, it doesn't stop the attunement by itself.

Ex: if someone wants to use the Demon Armor to give themselves more chances in the upcoming battle, casting Remove Curse on them won't make so they can't use the armor.

[Wuzza]

I'd accept to the table that the outcome wasn't ideal, but you would have expected them to be mature and resolve the issue between themselves. Then, if you feel it prudent, have them find the same/extremely similar item for the 2nd player.

[Cheesegear]

Nope, Remove Curse removes the curse making so the wearer/wielder can't stop the attunement, it doesn't stop the attunement by itself.

Maybe I can't read...

Player's Handbook, Remove Curse
[...]
If the object is a cursed magic item, its curse remains, but the spell breaks its owners attunement to the object so it can be removed it discarded.

Breaking the owner's attunement seems pretty clear.

casting Remove Curse on them won't make so they can't use the armor.

No. Casting Remove Curse would break their attunement; Effectively meaning that for them, they only gain the non-magical benefits of the armour. Unless part of the Curse of the armour happens when you put it on, no attunement required.

However there's another good (?) question:

If you get Remove Curse'd, and you have the option of dropping or removing an item; How long do you have to do that, before the Curse reasserts itself?

[Unoriginal]

Maybe I can't read...



Breaking the owner's attunement seems pretty clear.

You're right, I was misremembering the wording then. I apologize for this. On the other hand, it's also pretty clear that only cursed magic items are affected, and not any other kind of magic items.

If you get Remove Curse'd, and you have the option of dropping or removing an item; How long do you have to do that, before the Curse reasserts itself?

Well most cursed magic items have the curse asserts itself when you do something specific, so the Remove Curse would work until you do the thing to trigger it again.

[da newt]

WRT remove curse as a combat tactic - I believe RAW is pretty clear it only works on cursed items, and RAI requires the attuned PC's consent, but if we look at it from a ruling standpoint (aka as DM you could implement a ruling that remove curse DOES break attunement):

Imagine how much it would suck to be a PC with an epic weapon (or MI that provided flight or whatever) but any lowly caster can just remove your primary weapon from play until you complete your next short rest. This would become a common tactic in any world where magic items and casting were relatively common, and that would really suck for all your martials.

[Chronos]

I'm pretty sure that it doesn't require the consent of the cursed person, because a lot of curses operate by making the victim not want to be rid of them.

[Segev]

If a creature is relying on a cursed item in combat, the fact that it can be forcibly de-attuned from them by remove curse seems like just another downside of it being cursed.

Nothing suggests remove curse can forcibly de-attune a non-cursed item, so this doesn't seem a huge deal to me.

[da newt]

1. When two players in my games want the same bit of loot (item, weapon, whatever) I always suggest they resolve it by bidding auction style until one of them agrees to the other's offer. It tends to resolve matters amicably and feels fair.

ex) PC 1 - I'll give you 200 gp for it. PC 2 - nope, I'll give you my +1 dagger for it. PC 1 - nah, I'll trade you my plate armor for your chain armor and the Item. PC - 2 I'll take your plate + 200 gp. PC - 1 deal.

This usually works out pretty well.

[False God]

There's not a whole lot the DM can do here and your solution is fine. Ideally, they resolve it between themselves. You can take away the item entirely, you can turn it into a cursed item to make people not want it, you can do all sorts of things but the reality is that the IRL people at the table need to work this out, so at the end of the session, or at least by the next session, there's no grudges.

Have them flip a coin, roll a die, if you tolerate PVP, let their characters literally fight it out (but I find this usually goes poorly), but really it all comes down to the players.

And yeah, I've slipped in a "similar but slightly different" magic item later to balance things out. Though I usually avoid this in advance by saying they find "X magic items of Y value or lower" and then let them determine what the items are after they divvy up the loot.

[Sigreid]

The party needs to learn how to divide the loot themselves.

I wouldn't let remove curse break the attunement on non-cursed items. You're the DM though, so do what you want. If you do let it work that way, remember that it works on items the party has attuned as well.

[Segev]

Yeah, as to the OP's problem, have them work it out. If you MUST suggest something, convert the total loot into a gp value, give everyone equal shares, and then have those who want items from the loot pile bid on the items how much of their share they'll give up to claim it as part of their share.

If Bob says the Sword of Arguing is worth 500 gp and Fred says it's worth 600 gp, Fred gets it, and counts it as 600 gp worth of his share of the loot. So if shares are 1000 gp each, he has 400 gp left for his claim. If this causes loot to be left over, the remainder can be split evenly, and the process repeated as necessary.

[Sigreid]

Yeah, as to the OP's problem, have them work it out. If you MUST suggest something, convert the total loot into a gp value, give everyone equal shares, and then have those who want items from the loot pile bid on the items how much of their share they'll give up to claim it as part of their share.

If Bob says the Sword of Arguing is worth 500 gp and Fred says it's worth 600 gp, Fred gets it, and has 600 gp less in his loot pile other than that sword.

I really recommend that DM's stay out of loot distribution.

[Segev]

I really recommend that DM's stay out of loot distribution.

Generally, I agree. However, if it's causing contention OOC, suggesting resolution methods is fine. Trying to force them is less fine.

[Cheesegear]

And yeah, I've slipped in a "similar but slightly different" magic item later to balance things out.

That doesn't balance anything.
Increased magic item distribution straight up just makes the party more powerful.

Okay, we found a +1 Longsword, we should give it to the Melee DPR, 'cause if we come up against a Ghost we want the DPR to deal full damage.
I want it.
You're a Rogue.
Yes. And I'm proficient in Longswords, I want it.
But you use Longbows. When are you gonna use a Longsword?
Fair enough... DM; I want a magic Longbow, as well.
Umm...No?
But the Fighter got a Longsword, so that means I get a Longbow.
No it doesn't.
That's it! I'm gonna **** my pants if I don't get a magic Longbow.
If you're gonna **** your pants I don't want you at my table.
But I want to do full damage to Ghosts as well, because Sneak Attack does lots of damage.
What? ...If I give the Fighter a magic weapon, and I give the Rogue a magic weapon, one of two things will happen; They will be even more Ghosts that the party wont be able to deal with so it doesn't really matter if you have magic weapons or not because what you'll really need is AoEs, or, there wont be any Ghosts at all because I know you'll steamroll them so what's the point?

...Maybe I just don't understand Modern D&D. But you don't get a magic item because someone else, does.

Today is my brother's birthday; He gets a cake on his birthday...I get a cake on his birthday, too. Because if I don't, I'll cry. Because I'm a child.

If you MUST suggest something, convert the total loot into a gp value, give everyone equal shares
[...]
If Bob says the Sword of Arguing is worth 500 gp and Fred says it's worth 600 gp, Fred gets it, and has 600 gp less in his loot pile other than that sword.

...What happens during Tier 2, where gp becomes worthless? Do players begin trading magic items for other magic items? But not all classes can use all magic items. You can't trade a Wand of the War Mage you don't need anymore to a Fighter.

I really recommend that DM's stay out of loot distribution.

As the OP, I second that recommendation to myself. That's why at the time, I made it a dice roll - so I didn't have anything to do with it. However, on some level I realised after the fact - and I said so in the OP - that I probably should've just made it a straight dice roll - no modifiers. Because if I start telling my players that any attunable-item dispute can be "won" with a Charisma check, they'll start boosting their Charisma and then disputing any and all attunable items.

[Mastikator]

...What happens during Tier 2, where gp becomes worthless? Do players begin trading magic items for other magic items? But not all classes can use all magic items. You can't trade a Wand of the War Mage you don't need anymore to a Fighter.

Find a use for gold, don't let it become worthless. Let them buy flying mounts, mansions, castles, allow them to pour thousands of GP into crafting a single rare magic item.

[JonBeowulf]

RAW, Remove Curse does nothing to non-cursed items:

Remove Curse
At your touch, all curses affecting one creature or object end. If the object is a cursed magic item, its curse remains, but the spell breaks its owner's attunement to the object so it can be removed or discarded.

However, adding a "Remove Attunement" spell to your game could be fun.

[Sigreid]

That doesn't balance anything.
Increased magic item distribution straight up just makes the party more powerful.

Okay, we found a +1 Longsword, we should give it to the Melee DPR, 'cause if we come up against a Ghost we want the DPR to deal full damage.
I want it.
You're a Rogue.
Yes. And I'm proficient in Longswords, I want it.
But you use Longbows. When are you gonna use a Longsword?
Fair enough... DM; I want a magic Longbow, as well.
Umm...No?
But the Fighter got a Longsword, so that means I get a Longbow.
No it doesn't.
That's it! I'm gonna **** my pants if I don't get a magic Longbow.
If you're gonna **** your pants I don't want you at my table.
But I want to do full damage to Ghosts as well, because Sneak Attack does lots of damage.
What? ...If I give the Fighter a magic weapon, and I give the Rogue a magic weapon, one of two things will happen; They will be even more Ghosts that the party wont be able to deal with so it doesn't really matter if you have magic weapons or not because what you'll really need is AoEs, or, there wont be any Ghosts at all because I know you'll steamroll them so what's the point?

...Maybe I just don't understand Modern D&D. But you don't get a magic item because someone else, does.

Today is my brother's birthday; He gets a cake on his birthday...I get a cake on his birthday, too. Because if I don't, I'll cry. Because I'm a child.



...What happens during Tier 2, where gp becomes worthless? Do players begin trading magic items for other magic items? But not all classes can use all magic items. You can't trade a Wand of the War Mage you don't need anymore to a Fighter.



As the OP, I second that recommendation to myself. That's why at the time, I made it a dice roll - so I didn't have anything to do with it. However, on some level I realised after the fact - and I said so in the OP - that I probably should've just made it a straight dice roll - no modifiers. Because if I start telling my players that any attunable-item dispute can be "won" with a Charisma check, they'll start boosting their Charisma and then disputing any and all attunable items.

I hear you, but I really think it's better to not have any part of it. Maybe tell them if they can't figure it out they can roll dice or rock paper scissors or whatever, but the method is up to the group.

[False God]

That doesn't balance anything.
Increased magic item distribution straight up just makes the party more powerful.

I was referring to balance in the sense of "Jimmy and Timmy now both have a magic item they like, so they won't argue." not "the game is more balanced."

And giving out any magic items at all unbalances the game, because this system is extremely delicate that way.

[KorvinStarmast]

1. Two players want to attune to the same magic item. How do you resolve this?

You don't. The players do. If they can't agree and it gets contentious. Stop play and ask them to grow the heck up.

The party needs to learn how to divide the loot themselves.

If they can't play well together, the item isn't the problem.

Today is my brother's birthday; He gets a cake on his birthday...I get a cake on his birthday, too. Because if I don't, I'll cry. Because I'm a child.

Your problem isn't items, and it isn't attunement.

However, adding a "Remove Attunement" spell to your game could be fun.

No, it would only enable more grief play.

[Segev]

...What happens during Tier 2, where gp becomes worthless? Do players begin trading magic items for other magic items? But not all classes can use all magic items. You can't trade a Wand of the War Mage you don't need anymore to a Fighter.

By first converting all the magic items and other loot to gp value and dividing the gp value amongst the party, they can revalue the relative value of the loot, themselves. You could equally well divide it not be "actual gp value" but instead... actually, here's a probably-easier system. Do this IC if necessary, or OOC if the problem lies there:

1. First, instead of gp, each time the party divides loot, assign 1000 "loot shares" to each member of the party (assuming the party agrees to an "even split" of loot value).
2. Put each item of individual value (all magic items, anything that at least one character indicates they specifically want for more than its gp value, etc.) in one "lot." Put aside all the fungible loot for now (actual gp, art items and the like that will sell for gp that nobody explicitly says they want, etc.) You can group some items together if they form an obvious "set" and all participants who express interest in the item(s) agree they don't want the set split up.
3. Use a silent auction method to have each participant (characters or players, depending on IC or OOC) bid the maximum number of shares of loot they would say each lot/item is worth, secretly. This is how many of their own shares-of-loot-out-of-1000 that they would be willing to give up to have this item count as part of their loot. Note that not every share needs to be bid, here, because there's still fungible loot to be had, and my recommendation below will have a use for shares, too, if ties happen in the silent auction.
   
   • Silent auction method I recommend: Once the bids are revealed, the highest bidder for each item "wins" the item, but only pays as many shares+1 as the second-highest bidder.
   • In the case of a tie, let the ones who tied do a standard auction with their remaining, unbid shares. The winner pays the full amount he bids (both in the silent auction and in the secondary auction against the other tied bidders).
4. After all items are split up in the silent auction, all that should remain is fungible loot (and any loot nobody bid on), which will be liquidated.
   
   • Allow anybody who wants to last-minute speak up for items of loot nobody bid on to offer to "buy" it with shares, amicably agreeing if possible and holding further silent auctions if not.
5. Divide up the final gp value of the fungible loot by the number of shares not yet "spent" in the auctions, and give everyone one share of gp for each share of loot they still have (whether from losing the auction or from not bidding them in favor of getting more fungible loot or having more to bid on ties).

Now, the big dissatisfaction/failure state of this is if there's high contention for most of the items, and there's little fungible loot to go around. This works best when there's enough loot to be of interest to the whole party, rather than trying to divvy up one big drop and a few copper pieces. So it may be best to wait until loot has massed before divvying it up. Assign items to characters for use in the dungeon, for example, without making it a permanent assignment. Maybe flip a coin every short and long rest if there's really that much contention over it. Consumables are a party resource unless there's a good reason for them not to be, and if there's contention over THOSE being used, they can be split up evenly.

You can also use the above method and allow people to, instead of getting fungible loot, retain their shares from auction to auction, so that they can force an issue on a bigger item down the line.

[Sigreid]

Just for reference, our group looks at who will get the most mileage out of the item. Meaning is the party stronger if that goes to Timmy or Jessica? It's usually pretty obvious who it should go to with that metric.

[Segev]

Just for reference, our group looks at who will get the most mileage out of the item. Meaning is the party stronger if that goes to Timmy or Jessica? It's usually pretty obvious who it should go to with that metric.

Yeah, generally a good way to go. I tend to assume that this has broken down for some reason if there's argument. I can see it breaking down, for instance, if both Timmy and Jessica can get good use out of it, or if Jessica definitely gets better use out of it, but has gotten the last three magic items for the same reason every time Timmy was even in consideration for one, so Timmy would like to get something, please-and-thank-you. IT can also break down if both Timmy and Jessica think that they get better use out of it, and feel like they have been short-changed more than the other by the non-fungible nature of who got which items. "Jessica used the greater healing potions! Both of them! I deserve the Sword of Arguing more!" might cry out Timmy, only for Jessica to respond, "I used those potions because I was taking hits and you weren't! I need the Sword of Arguing to do my job better, while you're clearly fine!"

And that's just semi-legitimate reasons to argue, from my perspective as a third party on this hypothetical group. When you ARE Timmy or Jessica's player, and you want that Sword of Arguing, as a player, and you feel you have legitimate claim to being best able to use it for the benefit of the party, it's even harder to let go of it.

And then, of course, there's the possibility that the players are...in need of a talking-to about their attitudes towards group cooperation.

[Sigreid]

Yeah, generally a good way to go. I tend to assume that this has broken down for some reason if there's argument. I can see it breaking down, for instance, if both Timmy and Jessica can get good use out of it, or if Jessica definitely gets better use out of it, but has gotten the last three magic items for the same reason every time Timmy was even in consideration for one, so Timmy would like to get something, please-and-thank-you. IT can also break down if both Timmy and Jessica think that they get better use out of it, and feel like they have been short-changed more than the other by the non-fungible nature of who got which items. "Jessica used the greater healing potions! Both of them! I deserve the Sword of Arguing more!" might cry out Timmy, only for Jessica to respond, "I used those potions because I was taking hits and you weren't! I need the Sword of Arguing to do my job better, while you're clearly fine!"

And that's just semi-legitimate reasons to argue, from my perspective as a third party on this hypothetical group. When you ARE Timmy or Jessica's player, and you want that Sword of Arguing, as a player, and you feel you have legitimate claim to being best able to use it for the benefit of the party, it's even harder to let go of it.

And then, of course, there's the possibility that the players are...in need of a talking-to about their attitudes towards group cooperation.

Yeah, we also have the advantage of being people in our 30s to 50s that have played together for decades and have more going on in our lives than D&D. I think everyone starts from a position of "is this better for you?"

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think that if I were in a group where there was serious disagreement over who got what, to the point of needing a formalized bidding system...I'd walk away from that table. The DM needs to trust the players. The players need to trust the DM. And the players need to trust each other. All that trust is towards "X other person is trying seriously to make the game better for all of us." Doesn't mean they're successful or perfect. Just that they're trying. And fighting over loot is a symptom of lack of trust.

[JonBeowulf]

No, it would only enable more grief play.

That was for the "remove attunement on an item an enemy is using" part of the discussion. No PVP at my tables. I don't do it. I don't allow it. I don't even think about it.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think that if I were in a group where there was serious disagreement over who got what, to the point of needing a formalized bidding system...I'd walk away from that table. The DM needs to trust the players. The players need to trust the DM. And the players need to trust each other. All that trust is towards "X other person is trying seriously to make the game better for all of us." Doesn't mean they're successful or perfect. Just that they're trying. And fighting over loot is a symptom of lack of trust.

The easiest way to choose if there are to PCs and 1 item is to each roll a die: let RNG take care of it.
Experience based point: we had a number of cases in the old days that got resolved that way to avoid argument. But in most groups, the one who didn't get the item got first pick next time any dropped ... but your point in trust is a very good one.

[Cheesegear]

I was referring to balance in the sense of "Jimmy and Timmy now both have a magic item they like, so they won't argue." not "the game is more balanced."

Balancing players' feelings with each other isn't something I'm particularly concerned about. Almost every player I've ever had - and still have - plays by Rule 0:
The DM can do anything they want.
No Furries
Be an adult.

Your problem isn't items, and it isn't attunement.

It's never come up before, and I wondered what other DMs have done if such a thing has ever come up their tables.

I'm almost a little bit sad that 'If two players disagree on who should get a magic item, give them one each - problem solved.' was a real solution. It tells me that at some tables, the players really are in charge - and not in the good way.

By first converting all the magic items and other loot to gp value and dividing the gp value amongst the party, they can revalue the relative value of the loot, themselves...
[A loot organisation that has steps]

Just...Wow. That looks awful.

Meaning is the party stronger if that goes to Timmy or Jessica? It's usually pretty obvious who it should go to with that metric.

You throw a Shield +1 on the ground.
The Fighter looks at it.
The Tempest Cleric looks at it.

Round 1... Fight.

The issue is, that in a very specific case, with a large enough group (5-6 players...More?), you may end up with two players who have overlapping roles, and both could claim the magic item, and the 'Who can use it better?' metric, fails. Many classes would get excited if the BBEG has a magic Rapier.

I think that if I were in a group where there was serious disagreement over who got what, to the point of needing a formalized bidding system...I'd walk away from that table.

Partial agree.

The easiest way to choose if there are to PCs and 1 item is to each roll a die: let RNG take care of it.

This is my go to solution for almost anything, as it shifts "blame" away from me - the DM - if the dice roll something that the players don't like.
However, the DM refuses to make a decision that would make his players unhappy - what a coward. ...Joking not joking.

That's one of the reasons why I prefer random loot tables. If the players want a specific magic item, they can buy it. But otherwise the conversation goes like this:

Hey DM, I'm a Warlock so can I have a Wand of the War Mage for my Eldritch Blasts?
Sure, if I roll one.
But what if you don't roll one?
Correct.