D&D 5E Making a magic item.

[The Crimson Binome]

I would bet that most DMs would say "no", because based on an interpretation of implied intent that "magical weapons" are things that have a +1 or better bonus to hit. Now, I personally think that a +0 magical weapon is perfectly logical thing to exist, even more so with 5e flat math. D&D has not yet gone that way.

Actually, 5E does include magic weapons that lack a bonus to hit and damage. I think it's the Flametongue which does extra dice of damage, but which lacks any bonus to hit. It would qualify as a +0 magical weapon.

At least, if I'm remembering that correctly. I don't have my books at hand.

 

[Clancey]

I would allow it. It takes an action to cast Light. So you'd have one prepared prior to battle - a simple rock that does very little damage to begin with even as a sling stone.

Well, in fairness I should point out that the damage from weapons is generally a side bonus to my Rogue's Sneak Attacks.

 

[Uchawi]

It is 5E. Whatever the DM says goes.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, in fairness I should point out that the damage from weapons is generally a side bonus to my Rogue's Sneak Attacks.

Sure. I am still not seeing a lot of a problem there. I assume you're often using it to assassinate.

 

[Chocolategravy]

There are several spells and abilities that explicitly make a weapon magical so random spells like heat metal, darkness, light etc. implicitly don't.

 

[Clancey]

Well, played tonight and was given the go-ahead on the +0 magic. So, I have the sling ready and we run into a were-boar. Our lone magic user was not present and our Paladin was bitten and turned, thereby losing his Paladin abilities. We had a cleric and a druid, but they were too busy healing the other fighters to cast any attack spells. I took my sling out, and used a silver piece from my money pouch as ammo and was able to inflict damage to the Were-boar. It was interesting, to say the least, even though I lost a good chunk of change doing so. This was our second intense fight in a row, so there weren't a lot of spells left even if the fighters hadn't been getting knocked around and in need of healing.

 

[MechaPilot]

I would be inclined to say no to this specific example, but I do allow for several means of imbuing weapons with the ability to hurt creatures that need magic items to be hit.

One of the classic examples is from when I DM'd an AD&D 2e game. The PCs had to fight a fiend, and they needed a magic item to hurt it. What they found out was that a paladin who had fought against fiends was buried in the graveyard of a local temple. He was buried with his sword, which had absorbed his spirit's hatred for fiends and other supernatural evils. The PCs managed to convince the priest at that temple to allow them to exhume the grave and retrieve the sword so they could kill the fiend.

In an oriental campaign, the characters were able to use a weapon blessed in a river as a magic weapon.

In an evil campaign that I ran, an assassin was able to defile his daggers by using them to torture and murder innocents so they would be effective against angels.

 

[Erik42]

It is 5E. Whatever the DM says goes.

That is the case in every edition of D&D.

However, in no edition in which I've DM'd would I consider a stone with light cast on it to be a magic weapon for the purpose of hitting things only affected by magic weapons. Then I'd like to add that it is a poor DM that will through monsters at a party that is not equipped to fight them - unless they are testing you to see if you are wise enough to run or evade the combat. But far and away, the fair and fun thing to do is to provide challenging, but ultimately beatable foes. If one does not want to provide the party with magic weapons then one should not use creatures that can only be harmed by magic weapons.

I have noticed that in general not as many 5E monsters appear to be immune to a lot of damage types as resistant, as compared to other editions I've played (Mostly just first - I'll admit ignorance of much of what came between). I've noticed several creatures that could only be hit by +1 or better can now be hit by any magic weapon, or even silver weapons, or maybe are only resistant to non-magic weapons.

 

[Leatherhead]

Look into the Magic Stone Cantrip from the Elemental Evil Players Companion

 

[Ahrimon]

Well, played tonight and was given the go-ahead on the +0 magic. So, I have the sling ready and we run into a were-boar. Our lone magic user was not present and our Paladin was bitten and turned, thereby losing his Paladin abilities. We had a cleric and a druid, but they were too busy healing the other fighters to cast any attack spells. I took my sling out, and used a silver piece from my money pouch as ammo and was able to inflict damage to the Were-boar. It was interesting, to say the least, even though I lost a good chunk of change doing so. This was our second intense fight in a row, so there weren't a lot of spells left even if the fighters hadn't been getting knocked around and in need of healing.

DM madethe call so it looks like you have your answer. I really don't see anything wrong withthat call. As a paladin player though I'd be very concerned about the DM ruli g that I lost my paladin powers because of lycanthropy. I'm curious what the thought process behind that was.