Attunement can't stand it at all.  If I DM'd would be removed from game.

Spell Concentration another one I can't stand.  

As a GM you are entirely in your right to use, change, or bend any or all of the rules you want to.

However, the things you mentioned - Attunement and Concentration exist for a reason. If you toss them out the airlock, well, you asked for it. Maybe less for attunement as properly played your party shouldn't be overloaded with magic items until higher levels anyway.

Without the limits imposed by the concentration rules it is possible for some fairly OP player actions.

Attunement is there for the DM's who have a problem controlling their gift giving. 

Quote from bobberuchi >>

Attunement is there for the DM's who have a problem controlling their gift giving. 

 
You do know DMs let people buy magic items too, right? And attunement helps keep things balanced enough that they can usually offer a broad selection without having to worry about players stacking up some insane combo.

I try to view attunement as an opportunity, not an arbitrary limit. Change the attunement requirements on items so that characters have to complete mini-quests or overcome their flaws, that sort of thing, before they can unlock them

"Requires attunement by a ranger or druid" is boring. "Requires attunement by a ranger or druid under a full moon in the Sacred Grove", when the Sacred Grove is overrun by blights and needs to be cleared first, is a story

I prefer to give the players options as to how they make their build. If there were no attunement rules, I'd have to basically build their character for them to ensure they have the right power level. By having a limited number of slots, I can say "Here are five magic items, pick whichever three you want to use at a given time".

Is spell concentration really something limited to 5e?  I remember prior editions had casting times etc that would hang precariously agains the timing of combat rounds, and some spells/ritruals/summonings would in fact be disrupted if the caster was interfered with.

Attunement, I think 5e's conceit on balance (whether it truly is so or not is of course debateable) doesn't function well with folks who walk around with magic items as if they were enchanted Swiss army knives.  

As said, these like all strictures are easily ignored, 5e actually makes that more explicit than prior editions.

Another of many folks who have played for years but are just now starting to come back to the fold, so to speak.

I don’t actually have a problem wit any of the decisions that they made when putting together 5e. Whatever they did, it worked and helped ease more people into the game that ages ago was far mor complex in a lot of ways, but more simple in others.

I have things I think “went too far”, but that’s in relation to the games I have run for years, not the way they set it up. I have a lot of problems with some of the folks who started playing, and the way they seem to think that if it isn’t Rules As Written it shouldn’t happen, and there is only one D&D world, and odds like that, but I have dealt with that kind of thing since I started playing. 

But 1st Edition taught me the number one rule, and it was one of the first rules I learned: make it up. Snag it from elsewhere. Hell, I learned game mechanics on the side so i could understand more of the stuff that went into things. And that freed me from a lot of the stuff people get upset about.

Don’t like 19 gazillion subclasses? Fine, get rid of them. 

You want to bring back permanency spell? groovy, do it!

You want to run games in the forgotten realms but things don’t work the same? Well, have another huge monumental disaster and separate your continuity from the existing one.

You want to save orcs and goblins for bad guys? Do it. That is the point of all those subclasses and races and the entirety of the system for sharing one’s own Homebrew here.

So that people have choices for what they put into their own games.

Now, that long winded bit said, I hate what they did to classes, but I can see how it created more balanced overall classes.  I loathe min maxing, and they leaned a bit into it, so meh. I think of 3 through 5 as “player centric” versions, and 1 and 2 as DM centric.  But it is my experience that a lot of the tools, tables, charts, and stuff from 1 e and 2e really do fit easily into 5e — far more so than those other two and a half versions.

The new tools across the internet for playing online, the nifty stuff — I am disappointed by a lot of it in the same way and for the same things I am disappointed about new things like DDB — they are still not useful for the DM in the same way they are useful for the Players — where’s my 38 different cultures? Where’s my alternate magic systems and my additional ability scores?

Easy to whine about that stuff — and really, it only has an impact if you are going to use those new fangled toys. Otherwise, it is still your world, your game, and you can do what you want with it.

Lol, this is unusual, I pretty much agree with most everything that has been said on this thus far.

For starters, I also hate attunement. This is an unnecessary restriction, and It should be up to the DM to control this. I think this should be an optional rule, but not the default. Basically, it feels like WotC telling people how they should play, and though I appreciate WotC for many things, I do find this mildly offensive. In my opinion, the game should be based upon the freedom to run it however we want. The rules should only be there to facilitate the gameplay without restricting it.

That said I agree that the primary rule is that at the end of the day it is up to the DM, so if you don't like it change it. However, these days my friends and I live far from one another, so we mostly play online, so my only concern is that things like this need to be easily opted out of when utilizing DDB character sheets, etc...

As for DM's with a problem of gift giving, I think that is a common new DM problem that many of us learn the hard way, myself included. This doesn't need a rule to fix it though, it just needs the DM to learn and figure out how to solve the problem that they created. The DM is still the DM, and they can fix it if they need to, they just need to put a little thought into it. 

Lastly, I do recall concentration from 3.x as well. I don't think it existed before that though.

Quote from AngryGamers >>

Attunement can't stand it at all.  If I DM'd would be removed from game.
Spell Concentration another one I can't stand.  

I am an old skewl gamer too - but 5e has changed drastically what was 1e and/or 2e.

Both Attunement and Spell Concentration tend to lean towards more powerful things.

Longsword +1 probably isn't going to require attunement. But a +3 Longsword, Dragonslayer might.

Spell Concentration is the same - it's typically an ongoing defense or an ability to shut an enemy down repeatedly round after round.

So the idea that if a caster gets hit - and they need to maintain their concentration helps weave how delicate magic is.

Again, as others said - don't like them? Don't enforce'em.

Quote from DMGlenntendo >>

As for DM's with a problem of gift giving, I think that is a common new DM problem that many of us learn the hard way, myself included. This doesn't need a rule to fix it though, it just needs the DM to learn and figure out how to solve the problem that they created. The DM is still the DM, and they can fix it if they need to, they just need to put a little thought into it.

 I'll reiterate this, since I'm tired of the misrepresentations and sniping that comes from a certain segment of the community:

The problem is not that DMs give out too many magic items. I've yet to come across a single person arguing for attunement slots because they want to throw out magic items like candy because it gives them the warm fuzzies or something and then want to limit the numbers retroactively. It's not about self control. It's about not controlling others.

The problem is, at least partly, as I've already stated in this thread; I do not want to have to build a player's character for them. If they want to work with me on how to make their character fit their vision? Absolutely, I will. However, I firmly believe that, apart from ensuring that the character fits the theme and sits well mechanically, the player is sovereign over the character. I get to design and play the world, they get to design and play the character. I want to be able to give them choices in what magic items to suit their character while not permitting them to become "enchanted Swiss army knives", as MidnightPlat puts it.

That is what attunement permits. I can offer the party a range of magic items while maintaining that awesome feeling of "sweet, we just found a magic item, wonder what it is?", without having to sit down and planning out how each player will build their character for them or worry that I'm creating Inspector Gadget.

Are there other benefits? Absolutely. It means I can just put them in places to be found without fear that the Rogue will find every single one and turn into Inspector Gadget while everyone else is on mundane equipment, causing intraparty strife. It's still a potential issue...but it's not so severe. It also provides meaning to choice - how do you equip your character?

I've yet to see someone arguing for attunement slots because they lack self control. It's because without them, DM's would have to control things that they ideally wouldn't.

As an old school player you will know that in past editions, especially in Basic and AD&D, character level advancement was much weaker than in 5e. In fact, the great character improvements were achieved both by magic items, and by higher level spells, increased spell slots, and scrolls.
Well, in the 5th edition the logic is different. True, the biggest upgrades full casters get are still from their magic (higher level spells, and spell slots), but they also get a lot from their class and subclass advancement. On the other hand, the classes without magic, the half casters and the subclasses 1/3 casters improve mainly by advancing in their class and subclass (and the warlock, who despite being a full caster, goes along with him). And all classes get a lot from their class and subclass.
That is why in the 5th edition it is necessary that there is Attunement and Concentration. Excessive magic item buffs can still be controlled without Attunement by controlling the number of items you give out to your players. However, removing the concentration makes full casters excessively powerful. That's why there are those two limitations.
If you want to remove it, it's up to you. But good luck designing tough but fair fights. You are literally breaking the game.

Quote from DMGlenntendo >>

it feels like WotC telling people how they should play, and though I appreciate WotC for many things, I do find this mildly offensive. In my opinion, the game should be based upon the freedom to run it however we want.

Sorry to double post, but this has thrown me off. Of course WoTC tells you how you have to play. They are the ones who design the game, and their job is literally that: Tell you how to play the game they design. The design work is exactly that, telling you how you have to play to get the specific experience that the designers propose. That happens with all games, role-playing, tabletop, wargames, etc... It's something so obvious that it surprises me that someone makes this kind of comment.
And giving you more or less freedom is also telling you how you have to play.

I agree with those who point out that attunement lets a DM offer an array of things, and that players must then choose which particular items might best suit their goals.  It helps prevent, as someone mentioned, "Inspector Gadget" builds that can do everything due to a myriad of powerful magical items.  Concentration, as well, opens the door to fairly potent effects that carry on, WITH a chance of failing each round.  IMO concentration is a great mechanic to help balance some of the more potent effects, since you can't just slap down a Polymorph and ignore that enemy for an hour.

Of course, as has also been said, there's no valid reason you NEED to use these mechanics, as a DM, because the book clearly states you can change these rules as you see fit.  The "complaint" reminds me of someone standing on their deck crying that they HATE being out in the sun.  Turn around and go back inside, it's allowed.  If you're viewing every rule as a hard-coded, impossible to alter rule, you're not playing as intended.  Our DM recently offered a chance at a 4th attunement slot, but it was tied to your life essence and to gain the extra slot, you had to carry 1 level of exhaustion.  Of the 4 in our party, only one of us (not me) chose to do so.  My only reason for not doing it was an item I have that grants me Haste for 4 rounds and when it ends, I gain a level of exhaustion, instead of being "stunned" for a round.  It's all about balance and making choices and I see it as a good thing.

Yeah if you get rid of concentration, prepare to only have casters in your party going forward. It would basically elevate them to god-tier power level while rendering martials obsolete. 

I see attunement and a lot of other subtle little rules like that as story hooks, story bait, the little things that will drive a person down a road to wrack and ruin or rock and roll.

Maybe it is because I dropped so many of the damn things in the setting write up, which has no rules, but all of that comes across to me as being a way to do what was just mentioned: let them grow their characters in a way that doesn’t make them so strong they are demigods at level 9.

I think it is a fair assessment that, in comparison with even a 50th level Wizard from 1e AD&D, 5e characters are more akin to superheroes. It fits the times, it touches the proper nerves, and down the road it will change at the next big shift in the game.

I also think it is a fair assessment that in order to make those superheroes something with limits, they had to toss in rules. 

I used all the classes and subclasses to create new ones specifically for my game, but I don’t have subclasses, I just have classes, because I liked that system in 1e better than this one. If players don’t like that, they won’t play, but everything I did came from the direction of my players. We have a kind of unwritten rule that relies on the trust of years: they will give me the ideas of what they want, and I will fit it into the larger world as whole, into the campaign, and I get to set things up so that I can have fun too.

collective and collaborative play means that folks can talk this through. There was a time when DMs gave magic items out like candy, and the worry of a Monty haul campaign was real — but people still ran them.

I think a lot of longer term players, longer term DMs, get that idea, but are trying to balance a lot of the things in 5e that are so different from 1e it seems like we are playing an all new game.

Quote from Falwith >>

Of course, as has also been said, there's no valid reason you NEED to use these mechanics, as a DM, because the book clearly states you can change these rules as you see fit.  The "complaint" reminds me of someone standing on their deck crying that they HATE being out in the sun.  Turn around and go back inside, it's allowed. 

 I think sometimes people just need to vent about things that frustrate them. Using this thread in this way provides an audience where one can get some feedback, but also potentially find others who have similar frustrations (common ground). Take your example of the person complaining about being out in the sun for instance, it makes a person seem ridiculous, but really, it is all about the context. If the person is by themself, then yeah that does seem odd, but if they are with a group of friends, and they are expressing themself to try and sway their friends to come inside with them, then suddenly it makes a little more sense.

Attunement is a new rule set that did not exist until I think 5e ( I never played 4e, so not sure about that one). The point is that this is a significant change, and change is often difficult to accept, especially when a person really loved the way things were before. Removing attunement from the game does not break it any more than it did to add it in the first place, it merely changes it again.

Despite my earlier rant, I do see some upsides to attunement. I understand that it allows PC's to have some control over their build, which is great, but I think that can be accomplished with or without attunement. Conceptually I like attunement, I just don't like the way it is set up with hard line limits. I think if you are going to have restrictions on how many items can attune together, then it should vary based on the items and the wielder. There are a lot of variables to consider there, and I haven't fleshed them all out yet, but at the very least it makes sense to me that PC levels in combination with attributes could be considered as a part of what determines how many items can be attuned together. Take the extremes as an example, should a god and a farmer have the same attunement limits? I think a god would likely be able to mentally and physically attune more items. Anyways, no biggie, I'll homebrew if I need to, but those are my thoughts on that for now.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

I used all the classes and subclasses to create new ones specifically for my game, but I don’t have subclasses, I just have classes, because I liked that system in 1e better than this one.

 

Snipped to only grab the part I am commenting on lol.

I really love this idea as well.  I would prefer to see classes and a list at "subclass feature levels" of all the options each subclass has for the player to pick one of.  As you progress, some would have prerequisites, naturally, but it would allow for a much more organic growth of characters, IMO and you would end up with MUCH more finely tailored characters for the players.  I'm no game designer and I lack the time and patience to really flesh something like that out, but I would really like to see something along those lines. 

Quote from Falwith >>

Quote from AEDorsay >>

I used all the classes and subclasses to create new ones specifically for my game, but I don’t have subclasses, I just have classes, because I liked that system in 1e better than this one.

 

Snipped to only grab the part I am commenting on lol.

I really love this idea as well.  I would prefer to see classes and a list at "subclass feature levels" of all the options each subclass has for the player to pick one of.  As you progress, some would have prerequisites, naturally, but it would allow for a much more organic growth of characters, IMO and you would end up with MUCH more finely tailored characters for the players.  I'm no game designer and I lack the time and patience to really flesh something like that out, but I would really like to see something along those lines. 

 
I have 20 classes and a set of rules for more, lol. I try to give choices of three abilities at different stages, and the 20 classes are all very different from each other.  One of the best things about 5e is that it has all those wild special abilities. And then feats. And you can just snag a few that work together well. Give them choices at different points, e.g., 3rd you get three options, 7th you get two, 11th you get three, but set it so they can pick up a second one from the past by picking one of them instead. Gives the broad flexibility here and gives the minmaxers a sense of having more options.

I don’t have Druids. I have Rangers who have some Druid features, because I couldn’t get Druids into the setting properly. Which is hilarious to me because I did get Mortal Kombat into it, and for a bit I kinda blended monks and Druids. Play test was awful, so *shrug*. 

I have to finalize the handbook by end of next month. Will link a raw pdf in my signature line.

As for concentration, I recall using interruptions many times for certain spells during 1e era — it just wasn’t as deeply tricked out as it became later. Because I loathe the spell slot system (as a mechanic, it is executed poorly imo), and because my players had a list of complaints about how magic in the game works, I ended up having to step away from materials except for rituals, made all magic casting visible (effects no, casting yes), switched to a more robust spell point system that ties into fatigue, and a ton of minor changes to spells. I am “meh” about some, but the players like it and especially my younger folks whose reading and entertainment makes those things more acceptable. We are a long way from Vance’s magic in books, games, films, and tV shows.

but those changes are player driven, and obviously won’t work with VTT systems or DDB character builders.