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

[UngainlyTitan]

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'.

Why would they? if WoTC defines magic in any coherent and systematic way they are going to alienate any and all that disagree on their interpretation, and they will not buy their game.

Look at all the angst and drama over lore and changes to lore in revisions of older settings here and elsewhere. If magic systematized that become an iron band and no deviation will be allowed by sections of the fanbase. They are never going to bind the hand of new DMs and designers in that fashion. It is bad for business and creativity.

 

[pemerton]

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.

This is not orthodox AD&D.

From the PHB (p 47):

When a cleric casts this spell, it neutralizes or negates the magic it comes in contact with as follows: A dispel magic will not affect a specially enchanted item such as a scroll, magic ring, wand, rod, staff, miscellaneous magic item, magic weapon, magic shield, or magic armor. It will destroy magic potions (they are treated as 12th level for purposes of this spell), remove spells cast upon persons or objects, or counter the casting of spells in the area of effect.​

And from the DMG (p 41):

If this spell is cast upon a magic item it most certainly will have the effect of causing it to be non-operational for 1 round thereafter if the item does not make a saving throw - if the item is not in the possession of any creature, then the item gets no saving throw, and it is non-operational for 1 round. Note that artifacts and relics are NOT subject to this effect. Any dispel magic spell must be cast directly at the obiect, not anything or anyone else, to be so effective.​

In other words, the only magic item that can be disenchanted (as opposed to being neutralised for 1 minute) is a potion.

 

[Hussar]

Never minding that you do not need permanancy for making magic items.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why would they? if WoTC defines magic in any coherent and systematic way they are going to alienate any and all that disagree on their interpretation, and they will not buy their game.

Look at all the angst and drama over lore and changes to lore in revisions of older settings here and elsewhere. If magic systematized that become an iron band and no deviation will be allowed by sections of the fanbase. They are never going to bind the hand of new DMs and designers in that fashion. It is bad for business and creativity.

Definitions and coherent lore are things in other games though. D&D is not so special that it gets a pass IMO.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Definitions and coherent lore are things in other games though. D&D is not so special that it gets a pass IMO.

Are they though? more specifically are they there in other games with a large and diverse writer pool. Lore can be intimidating to new DMs, I know because I felt that way about Forgotten Realms and I have seen lore mastery used in an attempt to browbeat a DM.
It was not until I realised that the only lore that was important was the lore interacted with by the player via their characters. All the rest did not matter. In my experience putting lore and adherence to lore too high on a pedestal just enables gatekeeping and toxicity.
You have your lore, but you do not own the lore and have no right to dictate lore to me. To me competing versions of lore is a source of inspiration.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Are they though? more specifically are they there in other games with a large and diverse writer pool. Lore can be intimidating to new DMs, I know because I felt that way about Forgotten Realms and I have seen lore mastery used in an attempt to browbeat a DM.
It was not until I realised that the only lore that was important was the lore interacted with by the player via their characters. All the rest did not matter. In my experience putting lore and adherence to lore too high on a pedestal just enables gatekeeping and toxicity.
You have your lore, but you do not own the lore and have no right to dictate lore to me. To me competing versions of lore is a source of inspiration.

To me that is a bigger source of confusion for new players than a coherent lore set would be.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

To me that is a bigger source of confusion for new players than a coherent lore set would be.

That is nonsense, the new players and I know some of them, are mostly unaware of most of this. They will mostly interact with this via the new books, which gives them one version.
They may discover the rest from the online wikis (or YouTube) and from there get directed to the DMsGuild and other sources. But with out the current reference it will die and be forgotten.

If you really want the old lore to be preserved this is the best way in my opinion. If no new versions of the old setting are published then they will effectively die as the generations that remember them die off.
If they are published and thus available on DMSGuild that is the only real chance of the old lore being remembered.

 

[James Gasik]

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.

I checked on this as well, and it turns out- no, actually that isn't an assumption 1e makes. Here's the text:

Dispel Magic doesn't affect magic weapons, or anything else (not even scrolls!) save for potions, which are all considered 12 level magic effects, making it difficult for the spell to affect them until higher levels!

EDIT: sorry, I see someone else pointed this out first. That's what I get for replying to posts before finishing the current thread!

 

[James Gasik]

This is not orthodox AD&D.

From the PHB (p 47):

When a cleric casts this spell, it neutralizes or negates the magic it comes in contact with as follows: A dispel magic will not affect a specially enchanted item such as a scroll, magic ring, wand, rod, staff, miscellaneous magic item, magic weapon, magic shield, or magic armor. It will destroy magic potions (they are treated as 12th level for purposes of this spell), remove spells cast upon persons or objects, or counter the casting of spells in the area of effect.​

And from the DMG (p 41):

If this spell is cast upon a magic item it most certainly will have the effect of causing it to be non-operational for 1 round thereafter if the item does not make a saving throw - if the item is not in the possession of any creature, then the item gets no saving throw, and it is non-operational for 1 round. Note that artifacts and relics are NOT subject to this effect. Any dispel magic spell must be cast directly at the obiect, not anything or anyone else, to be so effective.​

In other words, the only magic item that can be disenchanted (as opposed to being neutralised for 1 minute) is a potion.

I love this, more "secret rules"! PHB: the spell doesn't affect your magic sword. DMG: well it will render it non-magical for a round unless it makes a saving throw- well actually it's wielder makes the saving throw. But you have to target the item even then, not the 3' cube the spell normally affects!

 

[tetrasodium]

I love this, more "secret rules"! PHB: the spell doesn't affect your magic sword. DMG: well it will render it non-magical for a round unless it makes a saving throw- well actually it's wielder makes the saving throw. But you have to target the item even then, not the 3' cube the spell normally affects!

Doesn't look so much "secret" as simply an example of "discovered it's raised often enough to be worthy of printing after the PHB was printed".

The first PHB section seems to be about magic items that happen to be in contact with the effect (ie not like flamestrike or something), the second DMG section seems to be some guidance for the "um, we noticed folks feel like casting this on a specific item should function differently, here's a good ruling we like that doesn't result in a six level drop on the /L9 disjunction spell" type blurb. I may not have the 1e books to reference but I do have the ad&d2e books & those clarify things nicely. Instead of the DMG blurb (I couldn't find it with a quick search) the spell itself in the PHB is clarified to include the secondary edge case itself.

Spoiler: pg191

Dispel Magic
(Abjuration)

Range: 120 yds. Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous Casting Time: 3
Area of Effect: 30-ft. cube Saving Throw: None

When a wizard casts this spell, it has a chance to neutralize or
negate magic it comes in contact with, as follows:
First, it removes spells and spell-like effects (including device
effects and innate abilities) from creatures or objects. Second, it dis-
rupts the casting or use of these in the area of effect at the instant
the dispel is cast. Third, it destroys magical potions (which are treated
as 12th level for purposes of this spell).
Each effect or potion in the spell’s area is checked to determine if
it is dispelled. The caster can always dispel his own magic; otherwise,
the chance to dispel depends on the difference in level between the
magical effect and the caster. The base chance is 50% (11 or higher
on 1d20 to dispel). If the caster is of higher level than the creator of
the effect to be dispelled, the difference is subtracted from the num-
ber needed on 1d20 to dispel (making it more likely that the dispel
succeeds); if the caster is of lower level, the difference is added to
the number needed on 1d20 to dispel (making it less likely that the
dispel succeeds). A roll of 20 always succeeds and a roll of 1 always
fails. Thus, if a caster is 10 levels higher, only a roll of 1 prevents the
effect from being dispelled.
A dispel magic spell does not affect a specially enchanted item,
such as a magical scroll, ring, wand, rod, staff, miscellaneous item,
weapon, shield, or armor, unless it is cast directly upon the item.
This renders the item nonoperational for 1d4 rounds. An item pos-
sessed and carried by a creature gains the creature’s saving throw
against this effect; otherwise, it is automatically rendered nonopera-
tional. An interdimensional interface (such as a bag of holding)
rendered nonoperational would be temporarily closed. Note that an
item’s physical properties are unchanged: A nonoperational magical
sword is still a sword.
Artifacts and relics are not subject to this spell; however, some of
their spell-like effects may be, at the DM’s option.
Note that this spell can be very effective when used upon
charmed and similarly beguiled creatures. Certain spells or effects
cannot be dispelled; these are listed in the spell descriptions.

Summary of Dispel Magic Effects

Source of Effect Resists As Result of Dispel
Caster None Dispel automatic
Other caster/ Level/HD of
innate ability other caster Effect negated
Wand 6th level *
Staff 8th level *
Potion 12th level Potion destroyed
Other magic 12th, unless special *
Artifact DM discretion DM discretion

*

Effect negated; if cast directly on item, item becomes nonoperational for 1d4 rounds.