D&D 5E Is This Magic Item Overpowered for 5e?

[L R Ballard]

Option 2.

Okay, I can present both alternatives in the conversion notes, a strong (permanent loss) and a weak (lost for a month) version. How the item functions can then be up to the DM's discretion, depending on an assessment of the players' tolerance for such outcomes.

 

[jaelis]

It is not overpowered. It is kind of mean, but no meaner in 5e than it was in AD&D.

 

[L R Ballard]

It is kind of mean, but no meaner in 5e than it was in AD&D.

And I liked the meanness of AD&D. Plus, the bad guy isn't supposed to be nice.

 

[Satyrn]

Okay. Here's how I would probably end up using the item if I was presented with it in an adventure module: I'd change it up as I suggested, making it suppress magic rather than destroying it. But I'd also give it charges like a 5e wand.

And then, in the fight I'd have the villain use it right away against one of the party's "middle tier" items to showcase how it functions. And then, in subsequent rounds he'd be targetting their "better" items. Ideally this would shift the players' focus from just fight to protecting their precious loot. They'd be scared, I think (since they don't know the magic's only suppressed), and that ought to make for a better more unique encounter. And it lets me be pure evil.

Not that this suggestion is really applicable to a conversion.

 

[S'mon]

The item is basically fine, and destroying an item seems kinder than destroying* a PC in my book (YMMV).

I think maybe with Legendary items there's a case for possible regeneration or treating like an Artifact, but most items should just disintegrate. Having villain do this then D-door away seems like a great way to create a truly hated adversary.

*It's not kind to turn your 9 year old son's 17th level Wizard into a smoking pile of ash, but he
shouldn't have rolled a '2' on that save vs Death Ray, darn it.
(It was a Blight Belcher cannon on an Heldannic Warbird, Classic D&D - they shoot Disintegration rays so a frontal assault was perhaps inadvisable.)

 

[L R Ballard]

The item is basically fine, and destroying an item seems kinder than destroying* a PC in my book (YMMV).

I think maybe with Legendary items there's a case for possible regeneration or treating like an Artifact, but most items should just disintegrate. Having villain do this then D-door away seems like a great way to create a truly hated adversary.

The adventure module author, Ed Greenwood, advises precisely that kind of hit-and-run tactic. If the DM runs the encounter by the book, Fzoul Chembryl is supposed to get away, to become a thorn in the PCs' side.

*It's not kind to turn your 9 your old son's 17th level Wizard into a smoking pile of ash, but he shouldn't have rolled a '2' on that save vs Death Ray, darn it.

Yeah, he should be at least 20th level before becoming a smoking pile of ash. . .

 

[L R Ballard]

Okay. Here's how I would probably end up using the item if I was presented with it in an adventure module: I'd change it up as I suggested, making it suppress magic rather than destroying it. But I'd also give it charges like a 5e wand.

And then, in the fight I'd have the villain use it right away against one of the party's "middle tier" items to showcase how it functions. And then, in subsequent rounds he'd be targetting their "better" items. Ideally this would shift the players' focus from just fight to protecting their precious loot. They'd be scared, I think (since they don't know the magic's only suppressed), and that ought to make for a better more unique encounter. And it lets me be pure evil.

Not that this suggestion is really applicable to a conversion.

Well, the feedback is helpful to me. If reactions to the rod of cancellation were completely negative, I wouldn't include it. But these responses so far suggest that DMs will be creative, and possibly exercise discretion, if using it.

I think the rod of cancellation presents a neat plot device and wonder why the 5e DMG omits it.

 

[L R Ballard]

If I may, I also have the same question about the absence of the incense of meditation from the 5e DMG's list of magic items. Is it missing because it's overpowered?

Ironically, Fzoul Chembryl is also said to have used incense of meditation before encountering the PCs (FRE1, 35). In second edition, incense of meditation allows the divine spellcaster to gain "maximum spell effects" (DMG 2e, 229). The effects last for 24 hours.

Thus, if Fzoul casts inflict wounds using a 7th-level spell slot, he automatically does 90 (9d10 necrotic), maximum damage for the spell. The same is true for any offensive spell that he casts while under the effect of the incense.

Maximum effects from spells after using incense of meditation. Too powerful a magic item?

 

[jaelis]

Yeah that one sounds too powerful to me.

 

[L R Ballard]

Yeah that one sounds too powerful to me.

I'm inclined to agree. The adventure is intended for a group of 4 to 6 characters of levels 5 to 8. By the time the combat with Fzoul commences, the PCs may have gained 2 levels. Most 7th-level characters won't have the hit points to sustain a max damage inflict wounds cast with a 7th-level slot.

Death ward could prevent a fatality; but, in the Avatar Trilogy, because of magical chaos, magic of that level is no given.