5e damaging magic items.

D

Darren Campbell

Villager

• Oct 1, 2018

• #1

So lets pretend a character has a magic item such as a flying broom, or a flying carpet, or some other magic item that is shall we say obviously a threat to the monster they are currently fighting.

If this giggling halfling is zipping around the place, tossing fireballs at the storm giant quintessant, that storm giant is going to hurl some lightning right back at him. And he does, and rolls some killer damage. The Halfling fails the save and takes 49 lighting damage. Here is the question:

If the broom/carpet/magic thingy is attached to the meat sack riding a wooden or cloth thingy...wouldn't it take some of that damage?

Think of the rug of smothering, its a magic monster that can take damage and die. It is a magic construct susceptible to piercing and slashing damage.

So if the magic broom/carpet is hit by magic damage, can it take damage? Is it invulnerable? Is dispel magic the only way to destroy this thing?

Not that I want to ruin the game play of a player that enjoys being the only one not affected by dexterity checks, melee attacks, ground effects, aeo effects or might feel put out if I put flying things in the encounter that can target the only thing capable of flying.

Its about leveling the field, not ruining the players experience.

Thanks.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Flexor the Mighty!

18/100 Strength!

• Oct 1, 2018

• #2

The rules state that the players gear is immune to fire damage I thought. So if you have a pile of documents they will burn if hit with 50 points of fireball damage, but if the PC is carrying those papers in his arms they are unaffected. Silly I know.

 

Y

Yunru

Banned

Banned

• Oct 1, 2018

• #3

Darren Campbell said:

might feel put out if I put flying things in the encounter that can target the only thing capable of flying.

Click to expand...

Why? It's not like they can only target the flyer.

 

K

Kobold Boots

Banned

Banned

• Oct 1, 2018

• #4

AFAIK, there's no rule surrounding the destruction of magic items so I'd focus on any house rule being something that would be internally consistent if for example, there ever ends up being an item that my players need to destroy.

My own house rule is that only the magic user that created the item can destroy the item on the plane the item was created. Once an item is removed from the planar magic of it's home plane, it's vulnerable to breakage just like the mundane object it was originally.

You'll have your own version.

KB

 

aco175

Legend

• Oct 1, 2018

• #5

Part of me thinks that if it was given out, you need to let the player have it and move on next campaign. On the other hand, taking away problem items is sometimes needed. People tend to get mad when you nerf their stuff. It feels like when someone comes up with a feat/class/item combo dealing, or healing, 300points per round.

I may tend to compromise and have the item short out for the rest of the day, or have the PC roll or fall off. Falling 50ft once or twice may make him less prone to use it.

 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

• Oct 1, 2018

• #6

As long as you're telegraphing the potential destruction of the item ahead of time, then when it actually happens the player can't say he or she wasn't sufficiently warned. So have the giants or whatever verbally threaten to pull the rug right out from under the halfling as it were. Then, a couple turns later, given a chance, do it. The idea here isn't to spring it on the player all of a sudden, but foreshadow the threat and see what the player does about it. If nothing, well, that's just too bad - yoink!

 

Umbran

Mod Squad

Staff member

Supporter

• Oct 1, 2018

• #7

Before you do this, consider the following:

How often do PCs get into situations where they might be subject to magic item damage? The answer is probably *lots*. Like, every single time they are subject to any significantly damaging magical effect.

If it happens a lot, that means lots of chances for each and every item to get fried. If that chance on each shot isn't significant, then there's no real reason to bother with a rule. If the chance is significant, then... well, pretty soon each item gets fried. Now the PCs have no items.

Is that what you want, to slowly break all the PC's hard-won goodies (which, in 5e, are probably kind of rare)? Do you think that will make the players happy with you?

Remember - realism sounds good, until it makes the game less fun.

 

D

Darren Campbell

Villager

• Oct 1, 2018

• #8

Thank you everyone. And like I said in my post its not like I want to ruin the fun of the game for them. I made finding some magic items difficult, but also giving them a chance to have them based on a roll and a cost. I also said its about leveling the playing field for everyone. If one person ends up with a magic combo that lets them 'win the day' by a super combo, the other players aren't having any fun. On that same note, if all the other players are susceptible to a particular condition, but the one guy just needs to hop on a broom or undo time to save himself then that makes for an uneven playing field.

Being fair, if his magic item can be damaged by magic, then anyone's magic items can be damaged by magic (In the case of fireball not igniting items worn or carried, ok that was a bad example). The other players have also expressed some unrest at the 'hop on the broom for everything'

Its something I will discuss with the group and the players.

 

C

CrimsonCarcharodon

Explorer

• Oct 1, 2018

• #9

I'd go one of two ways on this, heavily leaning toward the first way.

1. Talk to your player outside the game. Explain, without being accusatory or anything like that, that the item is causing some problems and suggest a nerf. For this specific example, maybe the flying object has a time limit on it per day, so it's not always the go-to solution for everything.

2. If the PC takes damage while flying, that's a Dex save. Failed save, can't stay on the flying object. Looks like they're falling.

That said, I always, always, always take the out-of-game option first.

 

J

Josiah Stoll

First Post

• Oct 1, 2018

• #10

I would recommend that you don’t have the players roll for treasure. The magic items that players get off of a random table feel a bit... impersonal, I guess?
Plus, it avoids nasty power level issues.