D&D (2024) DMG 5.5 - the return of bespoke magical items?

[tetrasodium]

Agreed. 5E casters can do bulk amounts of damage a few times a day, but that "bulk" is across multiple targets via AoEs (28hp x 6 foes in a fireball). Spells don't clear rooms like in 1e.

Warriors tend to do more damage per round vs single targets (3x attacks @ 20hp ea) which is better at strategically taking out targets. It is less total damage than fireball but warriors do that almost every round of almost every fight while casters have those rounds of throwing 15hp cantrips to drag down their average.

Exactly my experience

The "star" bit is a valid factor though. Warriors don't get as many opportunities to shine as casters or even rogues.

Here's where my experience tends to diverge. IME it only turns out to be true in a whiteroom with quantum spell lists or when it's a self fulfilling prophecy resulting from "I've decided my PC can't contribute so I'm not going to try". I went digging for this 4 year old post I wrote about handling traps & coincidentally the bulk of contributions were from the rogue (She led the show on it & was really into getting the other PCs to put their heads together with her while being responsible for doing the first two top level bullet points), didn't expect it to make the point so well by itself.

5E weapon crits are not as impressive as they just double dice and there's no more multiplying strength bonuses or x4 weapon multipliers.

Agreed, those extra values like crit range & crit mod present in 3.x were important for making PCs built for certain roles feel rewarding often enough. Our brains don't track numbers on scales like "every damage roll across the entire session" & get focused on either how alice almost always has a bigger number or how bob had that one huge number every couple sessions.

 

[James Gasik]

Hey caster envy is nothing new. I remember in 2e, where sword users had like, 7 attacks per round with +15 damage per hit*, but one fireball and they're like "wtf, why does pointy hat get to do so much damage!".

*Not an accurate statement. Usually.

 

[Lanefan]

Why though? If a creature is innately magical, why couldn't a craftsman use those materials to create magical items out of it? Is there any real reason you'd need to be a magician, priest, or shaman to do this?

The "why" is because of how those items interact mechanically with Detect Magic and Dispel Magic. You can't do anything to a Dragon with Dispel Magic, and thus the same goes for mundane items made out of said Dragon's bits.

 

[James Gasik]

The "why" is because of how those items interact mechanically with Detect Magic and Dispel Magic. You can't do anything to a Dragon with Dispel Magic, and thus the same goes for mundane items made out of said Dragon's bits.

I guess that's a fair point- why don't obviously magical creatures react to such? Heck, even a golem, created by magic, isn't really a magic item the same way a figurine of wondrous power is.

 

[pemerton]

The "why" is because of how those items interact mechanically with Detect Magic and Dispel Magic. You can't do anything to a Dragon with Dispel Magic, and thus the same goes for mundane items made out of said Dragon's bits.

I guess that's a fair point- why don't obviously magical creatures react to such? Heck, even a golem, created by magic, isn't really a magic item the same way a figurine of wondrous power is.

To me this seems like the tail wagging the dog - a couple of predominantly instrumental effects (detect and dispel magic) are being allowed to shape what should be the meaningful fiction of a master crafter able to forge preternatural artefacts.

 

[Lanefan]

To me this seems like the tail wagging the dog - a couple of predominantly instrumental effects (detect and dispel magic) are being allowed to shape what should be the meaningful fiction of a master crafter able to forge preternatural artefacts.

More like the dog and the tail need to consistently agree with each other as to whether the tail wags or not at any given time.

As in, things are either enchanted (i.e. magical) or they're not; and part of the definition of this is whether Detect and Dispel Magic work or not.

 

[James Gasik]

More like the dog and the tail need to consistently agree with each other as to whether the tail wags or not at any given time.

As in, things are either enchanted (i.e. magical) or they're not; and part of the definition of this is whether Detect and Dispel Magic work or not.

I had to check this, and apparently dispel magic doesn't work on magic items in 5e (relevant text):

• Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends. For each spell of 4th level or higher on the target, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell’s level. On a successful check, the spell ends.

Since being a "+1 sword" isn't a spell effect, dispel magic has no effect on it!

Antimagic shell, on the other hand, would suppress a magic sword, but not a magical creature (and you can't use detect magic to sense a magical creature either- the text is ambiguous on this point, but I'm pretty sure that's RAI, if for game balance if nothing else).

Now, I don't know what the RAW is now, but back in ye olden days, artifacts were impervious to mortal magic, and ignore the effects of antimagic shell and dispel magic (going by memory, they had very faint auras however), though the now-lost mordenkainen's disjunction had a slim chance of working on them. I think. Been awhile.

Bottom line is, if the DM wants the components of a magical creature to be able to be crafted into magic items sans spells, there's nothing wrong with that as a ruling for their games.

As to whether RAW allows it is murky, since while we're told that "magical energy suffuses the multiverse" -it's right in the text for antimagic shell so it must be true!- most things should be magical, but apparently there's some distinct difference between the magic that holds a dragon aloft in flight and the magic of a spell or item (Final Fantasy fans are probably nodding and saying "Blue Magic" to themselves, lol), and you may be forced to define that difference to explain why a dragonhide shield is functionally magical (and detecting as such) while an actual dragon, despite being magical, will not be detectable or affected by antimagic.

Special materials have, in D&D's history, had magical or quasi-magical properties on their own as well, blurring the lines quite a bit, though in 5e, I think all we have is adamantine and mithril, which, while fantastic, are just metals that don't exist on our world (maybe- mithril might be titanium by another name).

Why something like thinaun- an extraplanar metal from Limbo- can absorb the souls of slain creatures it comes into contact with and not be magical in the traditional sense is a little eyebrow raising, but D&D worlds...and especially other Planes of existence...can have very different physical laws, and so a metal that absorbs souls might be completely normal, depending on where you are.

 

[tetrasodium]

Bottom line is, if the DM wants the components of a magical creature to be able to be crafted into magic items sans spells, there's nothing wrong with that as a ruling for their games.

The dwarves in ad&d and dragonscale armor seemed to come up more in support of why a PC should be able to bypass the restriction rather than a desire to craft something technically magical. I haven't gotten the impression that there was much of an "if the DM wanted" concern being pressed since this tangent started, did that change, or are we still talking about why the player with a PC wanting a shield of shield should not be limited by needing to be capable of casting the spell?

 

[Lanefan]

I had to check this, and apparently dispel magic doesn't work on magic items in 5e (relevant text):

• Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends. For each spell of 4th level or higher on the target, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell’s level. On a successful check, the spell ends.

Since being a "+1 sword" isn't a spell effect, dispel magic has no effect on it!

That, I think, would depend on what went into enchanting the sword to be a +1.

In 1e the assumption is that there's a Permanency spell in there somewhere, which is dispellable and (depending on how the DM views such things) would thus disenchant the sword. If 5e has something similar - a specific spell that is required to enchant items or prime them to be enchanted - then that spell is (one would think) dispellable and I'd rule it would - or would have a chance to - drag the enchantment down with it.

Antimagic shell, on the other hand, would suppress a magic sword, but not a magical creature (and you can't use detect magic to sense a magical creature either- the text is ambiguous on this point, but I'm pretty sure that's RAI, if for game balance if nothing else).

Agreed.

Now, I don't know what the RAW is now, but back in ye olden days, artifacts were impervious to mortal magic, and ignore the effects of antimagic shell and dispel magic (going by memory, they had very faint auras however), though the now-lost mordenkainen's disjunction had a slim chance of working on them. I think. Been awhile.

That's about right, yes. We have it that artifacts often radiate very intense auras if detected, but that could be a houserule for all I know.

Bottom line is, if the DM wants the components of a magical creature to be able to be crafted into magic items sans spells, there's nothing wrong with that as a ruling for their games.

Of course. I'm more wondering about the "official" rules here.

As to whether RAW allows it is murky, since while we're told that "magical energy suffuses the multiverse" -it's right in the text for antimagic shell so it must be true!- most things should be magical, but apparently there's some distinct difference between the magic that holds a dragon aloft in flight and the magic of a spell or item (Final Fantasy fans are probably nodding and saying "Blue Magic" to themselves, lol), and you may be forced to define that difference to explain why a dragonhide shield is functionally magical (and detecting as such) while an actual dragon, despite being magical, will not be detectable or affected by antimagic.

I have the same underlying idea that magic is (in most places) an underlying force in the universe; and I also have it that magic-based creatures (i.e. anything not found in the past or present mundane world) require this to survive. Because of this I also differentiate between anti-magic and null magic:

Anti-magic scrambles an area's magic such that it cannot be "shaped" or made to do anything (thus spells, enchantments, etc. cease functioning) but the underlying magic is still there thus an Elf or a Dragon can happily survive in an anti-magic zone. An Elf can stand in front of a Beholder and fight it, though none of that Elf's magic will be functional at the time.

Null magic, on the other hand, outright removes all magic from the area; meaning an Elf or Dragon that can't get out of a null-magic zone will fairly quickly sicken and die. And the way I've set up the universe there's one element that nulls magic by its very presence, even in trace amounts, that being uranium; and this allows me to explain how mundane worlds like ours can co-exist in the same universe as magical worlds such as our D&D settings.

Special materials have, in D&D's history, had magical or quasi-magical properties on their own as well, blurring the lines quite a bit, though in 5e, I think all we have is adamantine and mithril, which, while fantastic, are just metals that don't exist on our world (maybe- mithril might be titanium by another name).

I've renamed adamantine as vibranium. Same idea, though.

Why something like thinaun- an extraplanar metal from Limbo- can absorb the souls of slain creatures it comes into contact with and not be magical in the traditional sense is a little eyebrow raising, but D&D worlds...and especially other Planes of existence...can have very different physical laws, and so a metal that absorbs souls might be completely normal, depending on where you are.

Indeed; once you get off the Prime Material all these ideas tend to go flying out the window.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I guess that's a fair point- why don't obviously magical creatures react to such? Heck, even a golem, created by magic, isn't really a magic item the same way a figurine of wondrous power is.

Oh, I've got this one:

Because WotC never spent any time considering what 'magic' means to any of their settings and as a result now neither they nor a vast portion of the fandom really have any frame of reference for how it should, could or would work aside from pulling a Quesada and saying 'it's magic, we don't have to explain it'.