5e announced!

[alhoon]

QUESTION:
In D&D next, dispel negates magical effects. That's the wording. Not just spells.
What about magical effects from permanent magic items? I.e. what happens when a dispel is cast on someone that has spider climb because of magic slippers? What happens when a dispel is cast on a +1 sword?

[Sorti]

actually the spell says:

Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within
range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends.
For each spell of 4th level or higher on the target, make
an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The
DC equals 10 + the spell’s level. On a successful check,
the spell ends.

so it refers to spells active on the target, not to generic "magical effects". Where did you read that?

[alhoon]

actually the spell says:

Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range.

so it refers to spells active on the target, not to generic "magical effects". Where did you read that?

It refers to magical effects on targets, it just explains how to deal with spells, failing to mention other kinds of magical effects. I checked the DMG. For a magical trap, like the fire-breathing statue, the dispel magic spell needs a dispel magic check and completely destroys the trap... And it's a permanent trap, not a one-use trap.

So the mention of "magical effects" instead of "spell effects" in the description and the "Destroys trap" thing make me positive it affects magic items. The problem is... how?
Even for permanent magic traps I would be a little hesitant to have it utterly destroyed by a dispel magic spell, let alone things like the permanent, hard-to-get, magic items of the PCs.

And yet, it came to play. A PC was using slippers of spider climb and the "spider climb" magical effect on him was targeted by a dispel. I made a call that the magic returned after a short rest but I would like to know if anyone has any other more concrete rule about it.

[Jester of the FoS]

It does say magical effect, not magical item.
So I'd rule casting dispel magic with slippers of spider climb would effectively dispel the slippers casting of spider climb. Which is awkward for a lot of items which always function and don't have a casting or time limit, so a short or long rest seems appropriate.

Traps are different. They're meant to be disabled by a couple rolls, so expending a spell to get past a trap seems fair. In flavour terms, the magic of traps is simply less permanent than a magic item.

[Sorti]

actually the spell says:

Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range.

so it refers to spells active on the target, not to generic "magical effects". Where did you read that?

It refers to magical effects on targets, it just explains how to deal with spells, failing to mention other kinds of magical effects. I checked the DMG. For a magical trap, like the fire-breathing statue, the dispel magic spell needs a dispel magic check and completely destroys the trap... And it's a permanent trap, not a one-use trap.

So the mention of "magical effects" instead of "spell effects" in the description and the "Destroys trap" thing make me positive it affects magic items. The problem is... how?
Even for permanent magic traps I would be a little hesitant to have it utterly destroyed by a dispel magic spell, let alone things like the permanent, hard-to-get, magic items of the PCs.

And yet, it came to play. A PC was using slippers of spider climb and the "spider climb" magical effect on him was targeted by a dispel. I made a call that the magic returned after a short rest but I would like to know if anyone has any other more concrete rule about it.

Ruling that the item is suspended for some time seems to be the best option. I think it was 1d4+1 rounds in 3E.

[alhoon]

In flavour terms, the magic of traps is simply less permanent than a magic item.

Yes, but in flavor terms, you have the magical statue of the dragon sentinel, standing vigil guardian of the door to the dark temple's vault for the past 300 years, since it was made in the days of the "Crusade of the Righteous against the Darkness" when the unholy church's treasures were threatened... that is deactivated by a wizard throwing a spell. For ever.
So, apparently, those dark clerics didn't really care for their treasure too much, since if they did, they would have put a physical trap that could be repaired easily if deactivated.

Hence I actually have the magical traps, the ones created to withstand the rigors of time... to reactivate their magic over time, or with the right arcana roll and expense of the right spell slot. (I.e that trap that needs DC 13 to deactivate, needs an arcana 13 to activate and a 3rd lvl slot).

Anyway... back to my question. The "Deactivated till the next rest" is problematic to use for every item, hence I would use it only for continuous effects.
On the other hand, I thought of this: As Jester said, dispel magic ended the "spider climb" effect. I believe I should have said to the PC "Once you take them off, and put them back on... the magic comes back!"

[Jester of the FoS]

On the other hand, I thought of this: As Jester said, dispel magic ended the "spider climb" effect. I believe I should have said to the PC "Once you take them off, and put them back on... the magic comes back!"

Or when the magic was suppressed it broke attunement, and the item needs to be bonded to the user again.

[alhoon]

That's a short rest, right?

[alhoon]

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/feature ... na-eberron

Ahhh... That's what I consider modularity! Semi-official house rules, by WotC themselves.

[alhoon]

Unearthed Arcana mass combat rules:

I was left totally unimpressed.
First thing first, if you put the characters as solos using their stats and group 10 monsters in a unit using a single monster's stack, then you have a 6th lvl fighter that has a good chance to kill 10 ogres together.

Second: with each stand being just 10 units, a battle between 120 soldiers, 4 PCs and 200 orcs, is like a battle with 32 DM controlled characters. Good luck running that.

Third: a stand of minotaurs can charge and push back a stand 2 squares. That is: 10 minotaurs push back a stand by 40 feet using their charge.

my verdict: The present rules, while fairly good for a fight involving 50-100 people, a couple of solos + the PCs, are awefully inadequate when numbers increase. They are also bad when it comes to single PCs fighting stands.
Hence, while the rules could cover a battle between 30 drow, 2 powerful priests and 30 goblins vs 40 elves and the PCs, you would be better served to have the stands fight in "mass combat" time and play the PCs normally.

For a battle between 500 humans and 700 orcs, it's impossible to use them, unless you use computer simulation programs.

[Jester of the FoS]

First thing first, if you put the characters as solos using their stats and group 10 monsters in a unit using a single monster's stack, then you have a 6th lvl fighter that has a good chance to kill 10 ogres together.

I agree with a lot of the complaints, in that large battles are hard. But one easy rule to remember about solos is they can become isolated if not adjacent to another strand. And isolated solos have disadvantage on attacks, attacks against them have advantage, and they take double damage.

[alhoon]

I agree with a lot of the complaints, in that large battles are hard. But one easy rule to remember about solos is they can become isolated if not adjacent to another strand. And isolated solos have disadvantage on attacks, attacks against them have advantage, and they take double damage.

So do stands though. So an isolated ogre stand with 10 ogres vs a fighter 20' from a group of soldiers fighting a group of orcs... are at a terrible disadvantage. You have a 6th lvl fighter guarding the back of group of 10 soldiers, easily wiping out 10 ogres that tried to charge the guards from the back!

Ogr | Fig | Gua | orc

[Sorti]

Yeah it doesn't make much sense that a strand of 10 ogres has the same hp as a solo ogre. maybe we can just moltiply the hp of the strand by ten. Similarly, I think the rules could be extended to allow for bigger homogeneous strands (e.g. 50 skeletons, 300 kobolds...) by considering the average hp and damage per round of the unit as a function of its number of components.

[alhoon]

I can think of many alternatives. I'm just commenting on the rules.
Personally, I'm not pro-increasing stand hp. I would just reduce solo hp, divide by 5. Why by 5 and not by 10? Because it's very difficult for 10 monsters to all be able to fight the same creature. Cover, move, others in the way... I think divide by 5 makes better sense.

[Jester of the FoS]

I can think of many alternatives. I'm just commenting on the rules.
Personally, I'm not pro-increasing stand hp. I would just reduce solo hp, divide by 5. Why by 5 and not by 10? Because it's very difficult for 10 monsters to all be able to fight the same creature. Cover, move, others in the way... I think divide by 5 makes better sense.

I'd actually just make solos take double damage as a baseline, which increases to 3x if isolated.
That's easier than adjusting a PC on the fly because the scale of battle increase.