0
\$\begingroup\$

The Adventurers League FAQ states:

Can My Familiar Attune to a Magic Item?

Any item attuned to an NPC under your control (such as, but not limited to, familiars, beast companions, simulacrums, conjured creatures, hirelings, lickspittles, etc.) counts against both your character’s limit of three attuned items and the character’s permanent magic item count.

This rule doesn’t imply that such creatures have the ability to attune to magic items. Whether or not a mindless undead creature—for example—can attune to something is subject to DM discretion.

If you have a simulacrum/familiar attuned to an item, are you also considered attuned to it, and therefore able to use it too?

My uncertainty comes from the fact that it states that it counts against your attunement slots, but not that you are considered as attuned to it (perhaps it's implicit, perhaps not, I'm not sure).

Ex: Bob the Wizard has a Simulacrum, Bobtwo. Bobtwo is attuned to a Staff of the Magi, and casts a Web spell with it, then hands it to Bob as an object interaction, then Bob would, on his turn, cast an Invisibility spell with the same Staff.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Should I just delete this question as everyone seems to hate it ? \$\endgroup\$ – Gael L Aug 24 '18 at 17:48
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Don't worry about downvotes. You've got a question that needs an answer. If you feel like you've gotten the answer, then it's still useful for you (and maybe someone else.) \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Aug 24 '18 at 17:50
6
\$\begingroup\$

No, this rule does not allow you to share the attunement like this

First let's look at the general rule for attuned items as found in the DMG:

An item can be attuned to only one creature at a time...

This rule is binding in AL play and unless there is some AL rule that overrides it, would still be in effect.

So, the AL rule says:

Any item attuned to an NPC under your control [...] counts against both your character’s limit of three attuned items and the character’s permanent magic item count.

This does nothing to override the general rule saying that an item can only be attuned to one creature at a time just that it "counts against" the number of items that can be attuned. The fact that they say "counts against both [...] limits" does not mean or imply that it "counts as attuned for both characters". Such a thing would have to be explicitly stated so that it could override the general rule.

The rule is simply in there to prevent characters with an NPC companion from having essentially double the attuned magic item capacity as players without NPC companions.

So, when your simulacrum hands the Staff of the Magi over to you, you must spend the requisite time (or other method) to attune to the item in order to use it according to the general rules.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I will accept your answer as it quotes something I had missed : "An item can be attuned to only one creature at a time...". If I had caught that before, it would have answered my question. A Simulacrum or companion is, indeed, a separate creature. \$\endgroup\$ – Gael L Aug 24 '18 at 18:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ @GaelL well I'm glad it helped :) \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Aug 24 '18 at 18:20
4
\$\begingroup\$

Items are not shared

That rule doesn't state that each NPC can 'share' attuned items. It only states that items attuned by NPCs count against your character limit and magic item count.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ But logically speaking, if it counts towards your attunement slots, why wouldn't you be considered as attuned to it, considering that normally, when an item counts towards your attunement total, it means that you are indeed attuned to it ? \$\endgroup\$ – Gael L Aug 24 '18 at 17:44
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @GaelL Because that's not what it says. It ONLY says that it counts against your total count. This is limiting factor, not a factor that gives you MORE capability. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Aug 24 '18 at 17:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ Why are you shouting at me ? I only asked a simple question. \$\endgroup\$ – Gael L Aug 24 '18 at 17:47
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @GaelL I'm sorry if you feel like I'm shouting, I was just emphasizing the difference. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Aug 24 '18 at 17:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ As I understand this answer, it is AL specific to prevent power imbalance between characters with pets/familiars/simulacrums and characters without. Am I parsing this correctly? \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Aug 13 at 20:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.