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

[James Gasik]

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.

Yeah, I knew that's how it worked in 2e. I suppose there was no way to publish errata in those days outside of in Dragon, and I know the PHB and DMG didn't come out at the same time. Still, it's one of those things that unless the DM mentions it, I wouldn't, by looking at the spell realize that was something it could do.

And given how the AD&D DMG is already full of "things players are not meant to know, ho ho ho", it's easy to look at something like this in a negative light (like the Assassin's knowledge of poisons).

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah, I knew that's how it worked in 2e. I suppose there was no way to publish errata in those days outside of in Dragon, and I know the PHB and DMG didn't come out at the same time. Still, it's one of those things that unless the DM mentions it, I wouldn't, by looking at the spell realize that was something it could do.

And given how the AD&D DMG is already full of "things players are not meant to know, ho ho ho", it's easy to look at something like this in a negative light (like the Assassin's knowledge of poisons).

That's not really how creative play worked back then in those early editions. Do you have much experience with those old editions at the time they were still newish?

Back in those days & in those early editions it was not a " unless the GM mentions it" corner case, it was a "hey GM.... I know it's not disjunction, but I want to run something by you, if I cast dispel magic on the [magic doodad] that seems yp be the source of this particular problem, would it help?" That was pretty much how huge chunks of the game worked when it came to social/exploration & "zany plan" mechanics

 

[James Gasik]

That's not really how creative play worked back then in those early editions. Do you have much experience with those old editions at the time they were still newish?

Back in those days & in those early editions it was not a " unless the GM mentions it" corner case, it was a "hey GM.... I know it's not disjunction, but I want to run something by you, if I cast dispel magic on the [magic doodad] that seems yp be the source of this particular problem, would it help?" That was pretty much how huge chunks of the game worked when it came to social/exploration & "zany plan" mechanics

Ah yes, the old "swing from chandeliers/Improvise Action" bit. It's hard for a DM to be "yes, and..." when it comes to players wanting to try high risk/high reward tactics because if it works, they'll want to do this in every single encounter, expecting an easy victory.

"I'll cast the sting cantrip at the opponent's eyes", "called shot to the groin", "I'll aim my decanter of endless water's geyser at the mouth of the white dragon as he goes to breathe"- it's fun at first, then it starts to become very very tedious, and I've encountered many DM's who instantly become suspicious of player bright ideas, and rule very conservatively (then complain that all players want to do is use things on their character sheet, lol).

I don't, by default, expect tactics like that to work, so I no longer try to attempt stunts outside the bounds of the written rules. This very board has active threads with DM's becoming very "letter of the law" with rules, strictly in order to avoid player exploitation- the new DMG apparently even has a section on just that topic!

I'll grant that in the early days, this might have been the norm for most. I, unfortunately, was trained by my experiences to expect the worst in such situations.

 

[tetrasodium]

Ah yes, the old "swing from chandeliers/Improvise Action" bit. It's hard for a DM to be "yes, and..." when it comes to players wanting to try high risk/high reward tactics because if it works, they'll want to do this in every single encounter, expecting an easy victory.

"I'll cast the sting cantrip at the opponent's eyes", "called shot to the groin", "I'll aim my decanter of endless water's geyser at the mouth of the white dragon as he goes to breathe"- it's fun at first, then it starts to become very very tedious, and I've encountered many DM's who instantly become suspicious of player bright ideas, and rule very conservatively (then complain that all players want to do is use things on their character sheet, lol).

I don't, by default, expect tactics like that to work, so I no longer try to attempt stunts outside the bounds of the written rules. This very board has active threads with DM's becoming very "letter of the law" with rules, strictly in order to avoid player exploitation- the new DMG apparently even has a section on just that topic!

I'll grant that in the early days, this might have been the norm for most. I, unfortunately, was trained by my experiences to expect the worst in such situations.

Did you forget that we were talking about 1e/2e not 5e. It wasn't particularly hard to GM players getting creative during the kinds of exploration & social situations I ,mentioned because it was so easy for PCs to die in those editions & recovery was so much more difficult/time consuming.

I can't check for1e, but "cantrip" was a first level spell that consumed a spell slot & pretty much explicitly limits itself in ways that prevent that sport of use. If players decide that the best course of clearing their way through an exploration or social challenge involves a dispel magic spell or there is a combat where the best debuff available is to EMP a bad guy's magic item when nuke spells were so devastating... that's still going to be a risk for the PCs

Spoiler: ad&d2e phb pg171 cantrip spell

Your criticism of that sort of player creativity is however accurate for 5e games because players are practically immune from risk & they have things like unlimited cantrips along with death saves easy explosive rest/recovery etc. Probably some of the many reasons those 5e design choices combined with a bad combo of prior skill systems get so much criticism

 

[James Gasik]

Did you forget that we were talking about 1e/2e not 5e. It wasn't particularly hard to GM players getting creative during the kinds of exploration & social situations I ,mentioned because it was so easy for PCs to die in those editions & recovery was so much more difficult/time consuming.

I can't check for1e, but "cantrip" was a first level spell that consumed a spell slot & pretty much explicitly limits itself in ways that prevent that sport of use. If players decide that the best course of clearing their way through an exploration or social challenge involves a dispel magic spell or there is a combat where the best debuff available is to EMP a bad guy's magic item when nuke spells were so devastating... that's still going to be a risk for the PCs

Spoiler: ad&d2e phb pg171 cantrip spell

View attachment 384979

Your criticism of that sort of player creativity is however accurate for 5e games because players are practically immune from risk & they have things like unlimited cantrips along with death saves easy explosive rest/recovery etc. Probably some of the many reasons those 5e design choices combined with a bad combo of prior skill systems get so much criticism

I totally am talking about AD&D, thanks. I conceded that the experiences you had might be more the norm, but I can only draw off mine.

Sting, by the way, in both it's original form (Dragon #100) and the reprinted form (Wizard's Spell Compendium Volume 4) did, in fact, allow for blinding, so blame my fuzzy memory for calling it an exploit.

 

[pemerton]

I totally am talking about AD&D, thanks.

It's hard for a DM to be "yes, and..." when it comes to players wanting to try high risk/high reward tactics because if it works, they'll want to do this in every single encounter, expecting an easy victory.

"I'll cast the sting cantrip at the opponent's eyes", "called shot to the groin", "I'll aim my decanter of endless water's geyser at the mouth of the white dragon as he goes to breathe"- it's fun at first, then it starts to become very very tedious, and I've encountered many DM's who instantly become suspicious of player bright ideas, and rule very conservatively (then complain that all players want to do is use things on their character sheet, lol).

Well, AD&D doesn't have a coherent framework/system for evaluating and applying those sorts of actions.

And rather than presenting such a framework, as the game developed - and we see this through both editions of AD&D and into 3E - various "improvisations" got rendered into canonical form in Sage Advice etc and incorporated into spell descriptions (so the AD&D PHB fireball rules contain Gygax's own rulings about how it expands, how it doesn't melt metal, etc; we get the use of Dispel Magic as a temporary neutralisation of a magic item; etc.

4e D&D was the first version of D&D to actually try and offer a consistent and coherent framework for improvisation. In my experience it worked well.

 

[Mistwell]

Case in point, in a Pathfinder 1e game, I had a player with immense AC, who managed to get said AC while still remaining a threat. Level-appropriate enemies could not touch them. The rest of the party might struggle, but they were fine.

Now, I could have enemies use magic missile more frequently, target weak saves, use enemies that hurt you when you hit them, or the dreaded grappling monster- there are many ways to approach this.

But most fights shouldn't involve these specialized tactics, and the way their character instantly became useless when they appeared was actually detrimental to the party as as whole, since now they could no longer rely on that character's contributions. And every time a monster came up that targeted said weak points, they (rightly!) complained that they were being singled out, which felt scummy to me, even though I knew it had to be done!

So when someone gripes about needing more damage or AC, I'm loathe to let them have it, even as they turn up their noses at the items I think are really cool.

So yes, while I do believe that player agency with regards to magical items would be good for the game, I also know that there are pitfalls associated with it, because the players aren't always concerned with the balance of the game- they want to make the game easier for their characters. Which is understandable and logical from a player's perspective, but can become a headache for a DM who, like me, overthinks and agonizes over the health of their game, lol.

That's fair. But I've been on the other end of this. I have a PC (Cleric) that invested a great deal of the choices they've had along the adventuring path into AC. Sacrifices made to increase AC at the expense of so many other things. Not to be one dimensional, but because the party badly needed someone who could stand on the front line while they stayed in the back and used ranged attacks. We'd TPK eventually if my PC were not absorbing attacks.

And my DM, routinely, finds ways to make sure my PC is hit. All the friggen time. Pretty much every single battle, a lot. The list of inventive ways to damage Mistwell's PC is long and varied.

Which means every opportunity I get to increase my AC further, I take. And then I add self healing to the mix, to stay standing knowing I will be hit all the time anyway. In an endless cycle.

Sometimes, I am fine with it. My PC is still alive after all so it's working out OK. But sometimes it's really frustrating because I never get room to breath and actually do much besides stand there and take it like a boxer wearing out his opponent's fist with their face. Cast an interesting spell with role playing opportunities, or keep myself going? It's keep myself going because if I go down, it's likely everyone does.

Sometimes, it's OK to just let the PCs win. Not every battle has to feel like death is on the line. It's OK to let the thing the player chose to focus on be that powerful thing.

 

[James Gasik]

That's fair. But I've been on the other end of this. I have a PC (Cleric) that invested a great deal of the choices they've had along the adventuring path into AC. Sacrifices made to increase AC at the expense of so many other things. Not to be one dimensional, but because the party badly needed someone who could stand on the front line while they stayed in the back and used ranged attacks. We'd TPK eventually if my PC were not absorbing attacks.

And my DM, routinely, finds ways to make sure my PC is hit. All the friggen time. Pretty much every single battle, a lot. The list of inventive ways to damage Mistwell's PC is long and varied.

Which means every opportunity I get to increase my AC further, I take. And then I add self healing to the mix, to stay standing knowing I will be hit all the time anyway. In an endless cycle.

Sometimes, I am fine with it. My PC is still alive after all so it's working out OK. But sometimes it's really frustrating because I never get room to breath and actually do much besides stand there and take it like a boxer wearing out his opponent's fist with their face. Cast an interesting spell with role playing opportunities, or keep myself going? It's keep myself going because if I go down, it's likely everyone does.

Sometimes, it's OK to just let the PCs win. Not every battle has to feel like death is on the line. It's OK to let the thing the player chose to focus on be that powerful thing.

I mean, absolutely, you want the players to feel like they are playing a game, not having the game inflicted upon them. The more time I have between sessions, however, the more I tend to overanalyze my campaigns.

And sometimes, without meaning to, I fall into this loop.

"Hm, the party steamrolled that encounter. Well that's ok, you should have easy battles from time to time, make you feel like you're getting powerful!"

"Ok, they walked through that fight as well. Maybe I should make the next encounter tougher? Well wait, maybe it's ok- we could focus on other things while they Steven Seagal their way through the fights!"

"But...if it's a fight they can win without even really expending resources, why even have it? Should I just handwave it? But at that point, why even have encounters, I could just give them xp and treasure and describe how they defeat the enemies and save us a bunch of pointless die rolls!"

"No, that's silly, they want to play the game, they want to roll dice, obviously they want to be challenged! I'll just tweak the numbers a little and..."

"Ok everyone looks annoyed and exhausted. Gah, that fight took so long to finish! Wait, now they want to take a long rest?! It's only the second encounter!"

You get the idea, lol. I always have this internal debate when not only designing adventures, but figuring out treasure. I want them to be excited to get treasure, but I'm also wary of how it impacts the game. Is this the right time to let them find an upgrade? If not now, when?

I'm basically the person 3e and 4e were made for, when it comes to treasure, because I had nice little guidelines about when players should have X bonuses, lol.

5e's "eh, just figure it out for yourself" approach really doesn't work for me, lol. And then of course, there's the constant struggle to make players excited to find gold and valuables, which means I likely will need to give them purchasing power, and eventually, the ability to get the items they want. Which is a good thing! Or so I tell myself, then I start thinking about how that went in my 3e/Pathfinder games...

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's fair. But I've been on the other end of this. I have a PC (Cleric) that invested a great deal of the choices they've had along the adventuring path into AC. Sacrifices made to increase AC at the expense of so many other things. Not to be one dimensional, but because the party badly needed someone who could stand on the front line while they stayed in the back and used ranged attacks. We'd TPK eventually if my PC were not absorbing attacks.

And my DM, routinely, finds ways to make sure my PC is hit. All the friggen time. Pretty much every single battle, a lot. The list of inventive ways to damage Mistwell's PC is long and varied.

Which means every opportunity I get to increase my AC further, I take. And then I add self healing to the mix, to stay standing knowing I will be hit all the time anyway. In an endless cycle.

Sometimes, I am fine with it. My PC is still alive after all so it's working out OK. But sometimes it's really frustrating because I never get room to breath and actually do much besides stand there and take it like a boxer wearing out his opponent's fist with their face. Cast an interesting spell with role playing opportunities, or keep myself going? It's keep myself going because if I go down, it's likely everyone does.

Sometimes, it's OK to just let the PCs win. Not every battle has to feel like death is on the line. It's OK to let the thing the player chose to focus on be that powerful thing.

Did you ever talk to your DM about these concerns? It sounds like that might have helped.

 

[tetrasodium]

Did you ever talk to your DM about these concerns? It sounds like that might have helped.

That's a good point, I've had positive experience with those kind of concerns about targeting feeling singled out like he mentioned but everything worked out well after the player spoke up & tried talking to me about why their PC was constantly getting targeted by monsters. Funny thing how ac13+14dex☆ on a robe wearing draconic sorcerer+devils sight hexblade dip makes for a juicy target when it regularly takes point in exploration & charges into melee in order to deliver 5ft range attacks alongside various debuffs leaving themadjacent with squares where you would find the generally much less appealing barbarian & plate wearing fighter targets. The player had never considered those kinds of reasons

☆ten con for the curious