D&D 5E Apostles of Ruin: Enhanced Villains Eve of Ruin

[Paul Farquhar]

I’ve given the issue a bit of thought whist out on my morning walk. The problem is, the 5e rarety system is far too poorly defined. So, whist it may work at one table, it isn’t portable to others.

Here are a couple of things I’ve used:

Immunity to non-magical AND resistant to magical weapons.

Can only be killed by a specific type of weapon. I used life stealing (which does require a bit of DM’s call). You could use vorpal, or +3.

Something I haven’t used, but seems to be a direction WotC are travelling: immunity to s/p/b, make sure there are plenty of weapons that do other types of damage available for martial characters to use (eg Sunsword).

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

I do lycanthropes as immune to non-magic, resistant to magic and vulnerable to silver.
My best example, as most other monsters are not so obvious.

 

[dave2008]

The thing is, magic items are as rare as and of the quality that the DM wants them to be. Either they're there or they're not. So going by their rarity or quality isn't meaningful.

I disagree. I am talking about the Rarity listed in the books, not how rare it is in a campaign. In theory, WotC has balanced magic items around there Rarity. If something is more rare it is, broadly speaking, more powerful. For example:

+1 weapon = Uncommon
+2 weapon = Rare
+3 weapon = Very Rare

Clearly the defined rarity is a measure of the items power. What is interesting about using Rarity instead of using the + is it allows for more nuance. For example:

Whelm (the warhammer from White Plume Mountain) is a +3 weapon, but it Rarity is Legendary. So with my classification a creature that is Immune to Very Rare items (generic +3 weapons) is not immune to damage from Whelm. So this give people incentive to look beyond the +bonus numbers and get more interesting and flavorful magic items

 

[dave2008]

I’ve given the issue a bit of thought whist out on my morning walk. The problem is, the 5e rarety system is far too poorly defined. So, whist it may work at one table, it isn’t portable to others.

What do you mean it is poorly defined? It is listed clearly on every item. Or do you mean how one determines what an items rarity should be if they are making there own?

There is this table in the DMG (typical 5e simplicity):

Magic Item Power by Rarity​

Rarity	Max Spell Level	Max Bonus
Common	1st	—
Uncommon	3rd	+1
Rare	6th	+2
Very rare	8th	+3
Legendary	9th	+4

 

[Paul Farquhar]

What do you mean it is poorly defined? It is listed clearly on every item. Or do you mean how one determines what an items rarity should be if they are making there own?

There is this table in the DMG (typical 5e simplicity):

Magic Item Power by Rarity​

Rarity	Max Spell Level	Max Bonus
Common	1st	—
Uncommon	3rd	+1
Rare	6th	+2
Very rare	8th	+3
Legendary	9th	+4

Look at items that give cold resistance….

 

[dave2008]

Look at items that give cold resistance….

No need

 

[dave2008]

The OP and first 3 posts have been updated with version 1.4 of Apostles of Ruin. Slightly revised a few stat blocks, but mostly typos and grammar edits

 

[Quartz]

Spotted another typo: in the entry for Miska you have 'leardership' instead of 'leadership'

 

[dave2008]

Spotted another typo: in the entry for Miska you have 'leardership' instead of 'leadership'

Thank you! Fixed - but I am not ready to update all my posts for that one typo yet. It is amazing to me that this short 25 page document has had so many people look over it (and at least me a dozen times) and there are still things that are missed!

 

[Quartz]

And another typo: in the section on Iggwilv you have 'enemites' instead of 'enemies'.

If you wanted to spice the pot a little more, how about adding in the original, Good, Tasha? Maybe someone exploring Castle Greyhawk resurrected her?