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

[merwins]

What happens when two rods of cancellation clash? Does the paradox spawn a Sphere of Annihilation?

Seems pretty straightforward. If only one of the rods fails its save, both will end up devoid of magic. If both rods make their saves, they will both remain viable.

Initiative matters if you want to know which rod discharged first.

Aww, yeah.

 

[L R Ballard]

Seems pretty straightforward. If only one of the rods fails its save, both will end up devoid of magic. If both rods make their saves, they will both remain viable.

Initiative matters if you want to know which rod discharged first.

Aww, yeah.

Yes, my first reply was facetious.

Mervinci's reply is a sound interpretation of how two rods of cancellation would function relative to one another provided that each rod is a one-use item, per the 2e DMG (205). Incidentally, the save DC for a rod is 14 (DMG 2e, 205).

 

[L R Ballard]

Indeed it is. I've been practicing the art of politics to get ready for my run for President.

That or become a Hegel scholar . . . he'll let you both affirm and deny a proposition with no penalty.

But seriously, I was actually looking the item two different ways: How I'd convert the item for my game, and how I'd convert it for a "faithful" conversion intended for sharing.

I don't think I've yet stated what I think you should do, but now I will.

S'mon's suggestion for the dust is excellent. It creates essentially the same effect as the original, and yet it's broader since some upcast spells affect more targets or have longer durations. It feels much more interesting that just more damage even though that is the primary effect. It's a neat use of leveraging 5e's rules to achieve the conversion.

That said, I think you ought to just convert both items to function as written: The rod is 1 use, magic gone, and tbe dust maximizes damage. The DMs using your conversion will know how to use the items in their own game.

But I also think you should use your own idea from earlier: Include a sidebar with a dust that work's as S'mon suggests (And offer varieties that increase the spell level by +2 or +3 too) , and a rod with charges that only suppresses magic (and varieties that do so for a month, a day, a minute).

Offer the conversion fathfully, but provide new related options!

I think the above advice is both faithful to the original versions of the magic items and solicitous of a DM's desire to have the items do otherwise.

 

[Ancalagon]

But why use this rod instead of blasting away the PCs with some more effective spell? It seems... odd.

 

[schnee]

But why use this rod instead of blasting away the PCs with some more effective spell? It seems... odd.

Is that one item causing him a lot of grief? I could see him going after a Staff of the Magi.

 

[schnee]

About whether this is bad or good... it depends on the group.

Some will take it in stride, go 'oooooh you bastard' and then channel that into a pissed-off character and have a blast with it.

Others will feel bad, because they do D&D for light escapism, and that type of loss will ruin their fun.

Which one is your group?

 

[L R Ballard]

But why use this rod instead of blasting away the PCs with some more effective spell? It seems... odd.

I'm converting an adventure module for Classic Modules Today. The question whether to include the rod is relevant for any potential user of the conversion notes, not for my own private campaign.

Given the absence of the rod of cancellation from the 5e DMG, I'm asking if it should even be possible for a 5e NPC to wield a rod of cancellation. I leave the question of its actual use to each individual DM.

I think the question why not have the NPC use something else is entirely fair. It depends on Fzoul Chembryl's endgame, a consideration that's up to each individual DM.

Wanna cast a damaging spell in a high-level spell slot? Go for it.