5e damaging magic items.

[Satyrn]

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.

Generally, if I'm gonna attack a character's magic item, I make it a deliberate action by the monster, and make it clear a round or two ahead of time that the attack is coming. And when such an action comes, it might come down to a single attack roll or opposed check that wrecks the item if the monster succeeds. If I'm being "nice" it might take two or three successes over multiple rounds or attacks.

The key for me is the player gets a chance to see it coming, so I wouldn't damage the broom/carpet/magic thingy when the giggling halfling in your example fails his save.



I've also introduced a way to kinda do what happens in your example, though, where a magic item can be destroyed by an attack. I introduced a meaner version of the rust monster's key feature and gave it to some Borderlands critters in my game. Along with dealing damage, this feature applies the "corroded" condition to metal armor and weapons on the target. That doesn't destroy the item. Instead, it reduces the item's effectiveness and gives a chance of breaking when the item is used.

So, the player still has a way to prevent the destruction of his magic weapon by switching to a different weapon. But if he doesn't, and his magic item is wrecked - well, that was the player's fault.

 

[Xaelvaen]

Oh, we should note that 5e already has a good mechanic for this that even makes sense: Concentration.

Say an item like a broom requires concentration to use. That limits the spells the caster can use while using the broom (but doesn't stop the fireballs) and gives you a built in "save when you take damage" mechanic or have the item stop working. This doesn't break the item permanently, but if they are going to make themselves a highly visible target, and make a save *every time* they take damage, they are apt to at least consider when it is worth the risk of a fall, and when it isn't.

Using this rule for 'guiding' a magic item that would conceivably take concentration, like a flying device, is brilliant. That is very well thought out, and greatly levels the playing field. I will be using this method myself for my 5E games in the future - thank you.

 

[MarkB]

If you're looking for a reasonable compromise, maybe go with magic items becoming deactivated if they take enough damage. Essentially, their magical essence is turned inwards, dedicated to keeping themselves intact, and the item becomes mundane for practical purposes, until the character takes the time to restore it during a short or long rest.

I'd require a deliberate attack against the item for this, not just a side-effect of an attack targeting the wielder or an area effect - though it would also be a not-unreasonable consequence for rolling a natural 1 on a saving throw if you want to go that way.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Magic items bring up a lot of questions for a DM. Though I've already sort of replied to this with my own item destruction method, I think more value comes from working through the problem of a flying character.

1. Certain magic items are more problematic than others. Items that provide movement or exceptional stats are more problematic than most. The broom fits in here.

2. The conversation with players doesn't need to be about using the item. That cat is already out of the bag so to speak and you're better off not nerfing things. I think the conversation needs to be about protecting the item and taking on different kinds of tasks that would otherwise be unassailable to them.

So if they've got a flying broom and there's a rumored horde within the depths of a mountain that's only accessible from the air due to the mountain coming up out of the sea in rough water or someone who can only be rescued from the air, you're now able to do it. This could be huge.

Then there's the matter of the previous owner of the broom coming back for it, or the other adventurers that would love to have the broom. Or maybe the broom is sentient and wants to unionize with the other kitchen implements such that they get days off or better accommodations than the rest of the party....

Yes the broom is very useful.. getting rid of it isn't the only option and warning the player that the item could be destroyed is only cool if there's a good story behind it.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

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

It will still ruin the players' experiences.
It sucks to have your cool stuff damaged, no matter how justified it is by the fiction.

 

[Jester David]

I think you can damage magic items with targeted magical attacks. I’d allow my PCs to target a monster’s wand or orb. Or get at a flying enemy on a carpet by destroying the carpet.
But I’d rule the attack has to be specifically aimed at the item, and not just included in an AoE.

 

[Jester David]

Also... whenever you rule magic items are functionally indestructible, they begin to be used in particularly foolish ways.
Vat of acid that might have something at the bottom? Reach in while wearing magic gloves. Or poke around with a magic staff.

I don't think we need to worry about object saving throws, like in 3e, where things could be damaged if you rolled a "1". You don't want to worry about the wizard's scrolls when they get targeted by a flaming sphere or their spellbook when they fall into a pit of acid.

 

[MarkB]

Also... whenever you rule magic items are functionally indestructible, they begin to be used in particularly foolish ways.
Vat of acid that might have something at the bottom? Reach in while wearing magic gloves. Or poke around with a magic staff.

I did once consider having an epic-level villain who wore armour made of low-level magic items. He wouldn't be attuned to any of them, or ever use their special properties - he'd just use them for physical protection.

 

[77IM]

A magic broom, you say? I'd call that AC 15, because it's mostly wood:

OBJECT ARMOR CLASS
Substance ... AC
Cloth, paper, rope ... 11
Crystal, glass, ice ... 13
Wood, bone ... 15
Stone ... 17
Iron, steel ... 19
Mithral ... 21
Adamantine ... 23

How many hit points on a broom? It should definitely count as a "Resilient" item (see below) and if we're being very generous it's Medium-sized because it's as big as the person riding it, so that's 18 hit points:

OBJECT HIT POINTS
Size ... Fragile ... Resilient
Tiny (bottle, lock) ... 2 (1d4) ... 5 (2d4)
Small (chest, lute) ... 3 (1d6) ... 10 (3d6)
Medium (barrel, chandelier) ... 4 (1d8) ... 18 (4d8)
Large (cart, 10-ft.·by-10-ft. window) ... 5 (1d10) ... 27 (5d10)

All objects are Immune to psychic and poison (DMG p.247). Now, ordinarily I'd call a wooden broomstick Vulnerable to fire damage, and Resistant to piercing. But:

MAGIC ITEM RESILIENCE
Most magic items are objects of extraordinary artisanship. Thanks to a combination of careful crafting and magical reinforcement, a magic item is at least as durable as a nonmagical item of its kind. Most magic items, other than potions and scrolls, have resistance to all damage. Artifacts are practically indestructible, requiring extraordinary measures to destroy.

Therefore, I'd probably call it Immune to non-magical piercing, and Resistant to all other damage EXCEPT fire.

So at my table it would be:

Magic Broom
Medium object
AC 15 (wood)
Hit Points 18
Damage Resistance acid, bludgeoning, cold, force, lightning, necrotic, piercing, radiant, slashing, thunder
Damage Immunity poison, psychic; piercing damage from non-magical weapon attacks
​

Now, I think there's plenty of reasonable justification for stats slightly different than what I posted above. Some people might object to a broomstick having a whopping 18 hit points; others might think that magical wood should have a higher AC than 15 due to the Magic Item Resilience; others might think that the resistances and immunities I came up with are too detailed and just shrug and say "resistant to all damage, except immune to poison and psychic." That's fine. My point is to illustrate the step-by-step way I decide an object's hit points. (Which seems to come up almost every session for some reason.)


BUT with "only" 18 hit points, and no resistance, it means a typical fireball spell would almost certainly one-shot this broom. That's actually true of most items the PCs would get, as many (such as weapons) would have considerably fewer hit points. So IF area attacks could hit items, it would be chaos and madness, as most PCs would be stripped of their precious items after a single hit from a dragon's breath weapon.

Therefore, I only allow items to be affected if they are deliberately targeted, or if they are caught in an effect that explicitly affects items.

• If you target an item with an attack, your attack roll has to beat both the item's AC and its wielder's AC, if the wielder is not incapacitated.
• If you target an item with a saving-throw effect that is capable of hurting objects, the wielder makes the save for the item using their own saving throw bonuses. If no-one is wielding the item, it automatically fails its save. If it's a sentient magic item, it's always entitled to a save, using its own ability bonus or its wielder's saving throw bonus, whichever is better (count the sentient item as having +0 in Str, Dex, and Con).

(That last part, I entirely made up. There's no formal rules that I'm aware of for targeting an object, or for what happens when an object is subject to an effect that allows a saving throw. But those are rulings I made on the spot, that the players seemed satisfied with.)

 

[shadowoflameth]

Most attacks including spells specify a number of targets or creatures. Some specify that they can target objects but there's nothing in most spells that says that you can't deliberately target an object. The rub is how to hurt magical items. Rule of thumb from past editions is that magic items are tougher than their mundane counterparts and can't be hurt by most non-magical attacks or my magic less potent than theirs. Your the DM make a ruling if someone tries this and go with the fun and flavor of the game. If you need a way to destroy a magic item, Adamantine does double damage to objects. With high level 'legendary' type items, artifacts or intelligent items, you may need some special circumstance like a spell to cast the evil spirit out of the ancestral sword, or the Book of Vile Darkness being destroyed by the aura of a 20th level paladin of devotion.