# Why the fear and hatred of Disjunction?



## Quartz (Nov 21, 2006)

Why do so many seem to be afraid of or against the spell _Mage's Disjunction_? So it destroys the PCs buffs and equipment; so what? They're still alive and unharmed (of course, a RBDM might put them in a hostile environment  ). And they can cast more spells. And they can get or create more items. At lower levels, it's a real BBEG spell. A one-shot item of _Mage's Disjunction_ should be well within the reach of a 10th level or so BBEG. After all, how's he going to keep his lieutenants in check? 

"See here the Talisman of Ak-Zanar. It had the ability to destroy all magic but that of its wielder. Do you really want to face me?" _(Unsaid: "It only works once, and then departs to be found by someone else.")_

Yes, chaps, your 7th level PCs might be facing a _Disjunction_.

Equally, it's a fine special pupose power for a mage-slaying weapon.

And it provides a real use for the Enchanted Weapon / Greater Enchanted Weapon / Magic Vestment / etc  buffing spells: "Hey Gandalf, he's de-magicked my sword: do something!" Buffing after, rather than before. If the item is particularly special, then PCs can use a _Wish_ to recover it if of sufficient level, or quest for one if not.

From the play POV it also provides the ideal way of getting rid of old, unused,  or troublesome items and introducing new ones. It also stops PC depending upon certain items, since they might not have them much longer. And if PCs are of a mind to create their own replacement items, then you have plot hooks galore.

How say you?


----------



## Darklone (Nov 21, 2006)

Dysjunction = Sunder = Game balance is threatened by too much or not enough treasure. If you allow the spell to be used widely, you have to counter the effect by allowing easy access to item crafting/buying and money. Now if you do that and don't use it enough, you have too much items.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 21, 2006)

I'm glad you are not my DM.

You appear to miss the concept of *FUN* in the game.

Certain actions in a game are counter to the idea of fun unless the DM is sadistic (and hence, only fun for him).

If as a player I work for several months of real time to acquire an item and the DM takes it away in a split second, he'd be very likely to get soda thrown at him. Do you understand now?


----------



## Seeten (Nov 21, 2006)

Since high level fighters are %70 gear and %30 character, it makes you into 3/10ths the man you were 10 seconds before.

As you say, as A wizard, you still have your 9th level spells, assuming you are level 17 or so, but as a fighter, fighting a cr20 monster with your longsword of not magical = dead. Good luck to you, though, killing a demon with a longsword and ac 20


----------



## Patlin (Nov 21, 2006)

My players like to accumulate treasure.  This spell reduces the fun of the game for them.  I therefore house rule the spell.

Why? Well, we play the game to have fun...


----------



## Crothian (Nov 21, 2006)

It depends on the focus of the game.  Many games and players as we see here focus on the treasure and this kills that fun for them.  However in a group that focuses more on the story and the challenges it works fine.  There are many ways to play the game and the spell doesn't work for all of them.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 21, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> And it provides a real use for the Enchanted Weapon / Greater Enchanted Weapon / Magic Vestment / etc  buffing spells: "Hey Gandalf, he's de-magicked my sword: do something!" Buffing after, rather than before.




Many players try to craft +1 weapons and armor with special qualities already. It is a lot cheaper to do so and have the weapon buffed. So, these buff spells already have a "real use". In fact, it is a extremely significant use. Those are bread and butter spells in some campaigns.


In campaigns where this does not happen, then the Clerics and Wizards will not have these buff spells prepared since Disjunction is not a spell that typically happens in a game. So in that scenario, the PC asking for the buff is typically hosed anyway because the spell caster will not have prepared the spell.


Either way, your logic here is totally flawed.


----------



## lukelightning (Nov 21, 2006)

It also depends on how available loot/magic items is in a given campaign. Many DMs are also highly resistant to the idea of "magic shops" in any form. So the items you have are hard to replace, and there is no certainty you'll get what you want. 

"So you lost your +3 keen wounding waraxe. Here's a +3 mace of disruption instead!" (Ignoring the fact the character spent several feats specializing in waraxe...)

And then if you want to have items tailored to your character, you have to craft them youself, so it costs you XP in addition to the money. So a single spell can take 100,000 gp of items from you...and thousands of xp as well.

So it might be better to just make a new character.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 21, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> It depends on the focus of the game.  Many games and players as we see here focus on the treasure and this kills that fun for them.  However in a group that focuses more on the story and the challenges it works fine.  There are many ways to play the game and the spell doesn't work for all of them.




I think this can (and often will) kill the fun even in a story focused game. Being story focused does not necessarily equate to being carefree about loss of expensive equipment.


----------



## Inconsequenti-AL (Nov 21, 2006)

From a financial point of view - Being dead is much cheaper to fix...

A 9th level spell and some diamonds vs a full 20th level characters load of gear.

Assuming someones alive to resurrect you that is.

Which is a weird artefact of DnD, but what can you do 


Always felt the will save for items was kinda mean. The casters will, assuming sane DCs, get to keep far more of their stuff - whereas the fighter types, who are generally far more reliant on it all, will get theirs fried.


Having said that, the last high level campaign i was in saw my characters items destroyed 3 times. It's actually quite a liberating experience - cuts down the clutter on the character sheet.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 21, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I think this can (and often will) kill the fun even in a story focused game. Being story focused does not necessarily equate to being carefree about loss of expensive equipment.




Story focused games tend to define the characters by what they are moreso then the equipment they have.  So, sure the characters will be under equiped for a while but the players don't feel that their fighter is 30% of a man now.  The players will then enjoy the challenge as the story takes a twist and they have to figure out what to do next.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 21, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I'm glad you are not my DM.
> 
> You appear to miss the concept of *FUN* in the game.



I think you're missing the player habituation. If your players are habituated to a thing then they need a reality check.


----------



## Angel of Adventure (Nov 21, 2006)

I'm thinking of altering Disjunction so that it destroys either Spells or equipment, and has a caster level % chance of taking down Epic spells.

I am not afraid of destroying equipment of my PCs.  They are all 30th level + w/good saves, so they are usually fine.  However, I don't like pausing the game for 15 minutes while we go thru all the items on their sheet and figure out what is here and what is gone.  It just takes too long.

Anyone have any ideas for making disjunction a "faster" spell?


----------



## Quartz (Nov 21, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Since high level fighters are %70 gear and %30 character, it makes you into 3/10ths the man you were 10 seconds before.



Doesn't that add to the challenge? You go into an encounter sure of yourself, then suddenly you're on the back foot, but you conquer in the end. Isn't that so much more of an achievement?


----------



## Cedric (Nov 21, 2006)

Anything that can be me back a few hundred thousand gp in one fell swoop...kind of sucks.


----------



## Inconsequenti-AL (Nov 21, 2006)

Angel of Adventure said:
			
		

> I'm thinking of altering Disjunction so that it destroys either Spells or equipment, and has a caster level % chance of taking down Epic spells.
> 
> I am not afraid of destroying equipment of my PCs.  They are all 30th level + w/good saves, so they are usually fine.  However, I don't like pausing the game for 15 minutes while we go thru all the items on their sheet and figure out what is here and what is gone.  It just takes too long.
> 
> Anyone have any ideas for making disjunction a "faster" spell?




I'd have it work normally on spell effects.

Possibly make the item destroying part work more like dispel magic. Can either:

a)target on 1 person/object and test all their stuff. 
b)targets highest caster level item on each person in the area. Keep going until it destroys something.

/end sidetrack into house rules.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 21, 2006)

Angel of Adventure said:
			
		

> Anyone have any ideas for making disjunction a "faster" spell?



Pre-roll the saves. That is, have a sheetful of rolls of d20. Generated in Excel or whatever. You, as the DM, already have a list of the PCs' magic items, don't you? So simply check them off against your sheet of rolls.


----------



## lukelightning (Nov 21, 2006)

Plus players are loathe to use it, since it is going to destroy the magic loot.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 21, 2006)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> Plus players are loathe to use it, since it is going to destroy the magic loot.



Surely that's their choice? Which they might end up regretting. An avaricious and over-confident opponent might not cast _Disjunction_ for similar reasons, but surely most opponents would value their lives over loot. Anyway, to be immune to a Disjunction, you've got to be touched by the caster, which means that many PCs will be affected by their colleague's _Disjunction_ if in the middle of combat. Which makes it a great spell with which to lead off.


----------



## lukelightning (Nov 21, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> An avaricious and over-confident opponent might not cast _Disjunction_ for similar reasons...




Do DMs who make opponents with _disjunction_ actually have them refrain from using it because the evil wizard or whatever wants the PC's items?


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 21, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> I think you're missing the player habituation. If your players are habituated to a thing then they need a reality check.




You mean like fun?

Yup, my players are used to that.  

So sad for your game. :\


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 21, 2006)

Other arguements aside, I think the real reason MD is never used is this:



> Even artifacts are subject to disjunction, though there is only a 1% chance per caster level of actually affecting such powerful items. Additionally, if an artifact is destroyed, you must make a DC 25 Will save or permanently lose all spellcasting abilities. (These abilities cannot be recovered by mortal magic, not even miracle or wish.)
> Note: Destroying artifacts is a dangerous business, and it is 95% likely to attract the attention of some powerful being who has an interest in or connection with the device.




Every time a caster uses this spell, they are risking a fate much worse than death, or even losing all equipment.  Loss of all spellcasting abilities makes a 20th level mage little more than a 3rd level commoner.  And nothing can get it back.  You may be pretty sure there are no artifacts around, but can you ever be 100% positive?  This drawback alone means that MD should only be used by casters as a back-to-the-wall, no-way-out, staring-into-death's-eyes situation.  Attracting the negative attention of a god is nothing to laugh at, either.

For a DM to have casters throwing MD around with total disregard for this fact just because they know the character is a one-shot NPC is a sign of poor RPing.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 21, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Story focused games tend to define the characters by what they are moreso then the equipment they have.  So, sure the characters will be under equiped for a while but the players don't feel that their fighter is 30% of a man now.  The players will then enjoy the challenge as the story takes a twist and they have to figure out what to do next.




This is an assumption and not very well based in reality. A player in a story focused game can still roleplay a very difficult set of tasks associated with acquiring a specific magical item. If the DM then destroys it, the player can still get angry about it.

It is the height of arrogance to think that players in story focused games are somehow superior to other players with regard to what is and is not fun (or what is or is not annoying).


----------



## Crothian (Nov 21, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This is an assumption and not very well based in reality. A player in a story focused game can still roleplay a very difficult set of tasks associated with acquiring a specific magical item. If the DM then destroys it, the player can still get angry about it.




It is based in reality.  Not everyone plays this way as I fully admit but some people do.  And ya, the p[layer can get angry about it.  But he also might not.  



> It is the height of arrogance to think that players in story focused games are somehow superior to other players with regard to what is and is not fun (or what is or is not annoying).




You just leap to your own wrong assumptions about my remarks.  Never did I say one was superior then the other.  All I said is not everyone plays in a game that this would be not fun and not everyone will find this annoying.  So, please stop making these assumptions and trying to start a fight.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 21, 2006)

A spell caster should be afraid of USING Disjunction.

1.  Destroys treasure (not a good thing).

2.  "Even artifacts are subject to disjunction, though there is only a 1% chance per caster level of actually affecting such powerful items. Additionally, if an artifact is destroyed, you must make a DC 25 Will save or permanently lose all spellcasting abilities. (These abilities cannot be recovered by mortal magic, not even miracle or wish.) 

Note: Destroying artifacts is a dangerous business, and it is 95% likely to attract the attention of some powerful being who has an interest in or connection with the device. "

You normally have no way of knowing for sure if artifacts are within the area of effect, making its use dangerous to the caster.  In D&D even death is less permanent that losing you spellcasting abilities from using Disjunction.

Antimagic Field is a MUCH better choice, normally.

Disjunction should only be used *in extremis*, and maybe not even than.


----------



## Psion (Nov 21, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I'm glad you are not my DM.
> 
> You appear to miss the concept of *FUN* in the game.




I think this is a bit short sighted. A good DM knows this. Either they:
1) Are prepared to deviate from the guidelines and compensate for it, or
2) Have an interesting treasure in store, but doesn't want to go about contrived "okay, we have this sword here, but you gotta give up all of your stored up +1 swords, etc..." and/or the associated accounting time of selling accumulated goods in order to make room for the new treasure.

Further, threat of loss is one of the most exhilarating emotional kickers in the game. A game without challenge is a boring game.

I think it could be instrumental in providing MORE fun.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 21, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> It is based in reality.  Not everyone plays this way as I fully admit but some people do.  And ya, the p[layer can get angry about it.  But he also might not.
> 
> ...
> 
> You just leap to your own wrong assumptions about my remarks.  Never did I say one was superior then the other.  All I said is not everyone plays in a game that this would be not fun and not everyone will find this annoying.  So, please stop making these assumptions and trying to start a fight.




I'm not the one who said:



> The players *will then enjoy* the challenge




You were directly stating that people in a story focused game will enjoy the challenge.

That's total nonsense. It might happen, but it might not. In fact, it probably will not for many players. Not if the player spent months of real time working for a given item or spent thousands of gold pieces and XP crafting an item.

I'm not trying to pick a fight. I just find your assumptions about story focused games extremely suspect. I suspect that players in such games who totally could care less about their expensive items are the exception as opposed to the rule.

In any case, post a poll. See how many people would find it annoying as compared to who would care less.


----------



## Seeten (Nov 21, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> Doesn't that add to the challenge? You go into an encounter sure of yourself, then suddenly you're on the back foot, but you conquer in the end. Isn't that so much more of an achievement?




No. Lets look at a case study.

Level 20 party, we have:

Fighter, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard.

Disjunction destroys everything. Wizard spells have lower DC's now, he loses some metamagic, but he has level 9 spells, the ability to shapechange into a fire giant, and the vast majority of his power intact. The Cleric has lower DC's but can still turn, still has his 9th level spells, can restore his equipment via miracle, and basically retains the majority of his power. Level 20 Paladin loses much of his ability to hit high ac foes, loses much of his ac, so he is easy to hit via high ac foes. Loses much of his save bonuses, but not as many as the fighter. Loses the ability to pierce damage reduction, so if the opponent is a DR haver, as almost all CR 20+ monsters are, he is much less likely to be a contributor. In short, he loses far more than the cleric. The fighter loses: AC, To Hit, Ability to Power Attack meaningfully, most of his save bonuses, the ability to pierce DR.

Basically, at high levels, non spell casters ARE their equipment. They have very little personal power. Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Sorcerors have PERSONAL power. Fighters have gear. A fighter has a 20 BAB, but thats not enough against real CR 20 challenges. You need much more than 20, hence why monks have so much trouble hitting. Disjunction is unfair to non-spellcasters, as it strips their base of power. 

Mike Mearls fantastic product, Iron Heroes, took the basic assumptions of D&D and stripped the "magic item" requirements from the fighter types. If you want a campaign where wizards throw disjunction around, I strongly recommend allowing all the fighter focused types to pick classes/use the rules from Iron Heroes, so they dont become bystanders watching the real heroes, the Clerics and Wizards, suddenly do everything for them.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 21, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Further, threat of loss is one of the most exhilarating emotional kickers in the game. A game without challenge is a boring game.
> 
> I think it could be instrumental in providing MORE fun.




It really does depend on the type of loss. If it is a loss that can (with effort) be restored, then it might be an emotional kicker.

If it is a loss that is extremely difficult or nearly impossible to restore, then it can be an emotional downer.

Take for example the PC who repeatedly dies and gets raised. If following core rules, he will fall further and further behind the level of other PCs and his dying death spiral will continue. Any reasonable challenge for the other PCs will start becoming a total death threat for him. If the player is emotionally attached to the PC, it might not be the "emotional kicker" that you claim.


----------



## lukelightning (Nov 21, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Fighter, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard.




You left out rogue (who sucks anyways), but now the poor guy has an even worse chance of hitting and is way more vulnerable than the fighter.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 21, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Wizard spells have lower DC's now, he loses some metamagic, but he has level 9 spells, the ability to shapechange into a fire giant, and the vast majority of his power intact. The Cleric has lower DC's but can still turn, still has his 9th level spells, can restore his equipment via miracle, and basically retains the majority of his power.



 Note that if the wizard and cleric have lower DC's then they will definitely be losing some higher level spells, possibly even access to their 9th-level spells if they do not have base 19+ stats.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 21, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> That's total nonsense. It might happen, but it might not. In fact, it probably will not for many players. Not if the player spent months of real time working for a given item or spent thousands of gold pieces and XP crafting an item.
> 
> I'm not trying to pick a fight. I just find your assumptions about story focused games extremely suspect. I suspect that players in such games who totally could care less about their expensive items are the exception as opposed to the rule.




I also said "Story focused games tend to define..." and it was those players I was referring to.  Not all of them.  You took a sentance out of context and jumped on it.  

It is a different mindset then you seem to have.  Heck, it might be a different mindset then most D&D players have.  That still does not mean that these people do not exist and I am not making assuptions about all story based games.  Like I keep saying, different people play in different ways.  You jumpo on me for making assuptions and then you go off and are now assuming that it won't work for many of these players.


----------



## Psion (Nov 21, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It really does depend on the type of loss. If it is a loss that can (with effort) be restored, then it might be an emotional kicker.
> 
> If it is a loss that is extremely difficult or nearly impossible to restore, then it can be an emotional downer.




Great. Now refer to the section above the one you quoted, and there's your answer.

A GM CAN screw you over, without the help of a spell. The whole universe is at his command. If your GM is out to screw you over, you are hosed from the get-go.


----------



## Seeten (Nov 21, 2006)

I guess its a trust thing. I dont trust most DM's I game with to do anything beyond use it to break my items and leave me a level 17 fighter with ac 16 and a longsword.


----------



## lukelightning (Nov 21, 2006)

You could just change the spell to totally supress, but not destroy, magic. Spell effects are dispelled, but magic items are just inert for a day.


----------



## Bad Paper (Nov 21, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> The Cleric has lower DC's but can still turn, still has his 9th level spells, can restore his equipment via miracle, and basically retains the majority of his power.



If the cleric has _miracle_, then he can just undo the casting of _disjunction_...or can he?  Would that count as a variation of _wish_'s "undo misfortune" function?


----------



## lukelightning (Nov 21, 2006)

Bad Paper said:
			
		

> If the cleric has _miracle_, then he can just undo the casting of _disjunction_...or can he?  Would that count as a variation of _wish_'s "undo misfortune" function?




I'd say that's a perfect use for _miracle_.

Cleric: I pray to my deity, Jubbjub, for a miracle.
DM: Jubjubb restores all your items, but not the rest of the PCs'.
Other players: No fair!
Cleric: Serves you right, you filthy heathens!


----------



## Seeten (Nov 21, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Note that if the wizard and cleric have lower DC's then they will definitely be losing some higher level spells, possibly even access to their 9th-level spells if they do not have base 19+ stats.




As a wizard, teleport away. Re-Memorize spells, after casting the int booster on yourself. Its a level 2 spell. Also, all my wizards have 19+ int by level 12. Call me wacky.

As a fighter, cry. Cry more. Wish you were useful. Wait for DM handouts.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 21, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> As a fighter, cry. Cry more. Wish you were useful. Wait for DM handouts.




Or try to be creative and do something.


----------



## Bad Paper (Nov 21, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Or try to be creative and do something.



Grapple, pin, repeat.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 21, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> As a wizard, teleport away. Re-Memorize spells, after casting the int booster on yourself. Its a level 2 spell.



 No.  The int booster spell (fox's cunning) will not help you regain those spells you lost for the higher stat: "Wizards (and other spellcasters who rely on Intelligence) affected by this spell do not gain any additional bonus spells for the increased Intelligence..."


			
				Seeten said:
			
		

> Also, all my wizards have 19+ int by level 12. Call me wacky.



 Not wacky, just the standard power gaming build of an Int-based spell caster.


----------



## Seeten (Nov 21, 2006)

Grappling dragons, demons, giants, and the majority of other high CR opponents is possible for grapple monkies only, otherwise, its a waste of an action.

You know what though? Dismissal, magic circle, wail of the banshee, shapechange, finger of death, disintegrate all continue to work.

Why are we defending a spell that wrecks half the party and leaves the other half basically untouched? Why as a DM would you want to highlight further how much better cleric, druid and wizard are than fighter and rogue? At a certain point, its just mean.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 21, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Basically, at high levels, non spell casters ARE their equipment. They have very little personal power. Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Sorcerors have PERSONAL power. Fighters have gear. A fighter has a 20 BAB, but thats not enough against real CR 20 challenges. You need much more than 20, hence why monks have so much trouble hitting. Disjunction is unfair to non-spellcasters, as it strips their base of power.




I disagree. Those spellcasters aren't going to last long without the combat types. So they buff them. And a 20th level fighter will have an adjusted AB of well over 20 due to feats and stats. Str 26 (+5 from levels, +5 Inherent) +10, Weapon Focus, Weapon Mastery, Greater Weapon Focus, etc. Call it +35 to +40. And that's while they're being re-buffed. And don't forget that a fighter can expect - in the mathematical sense - to only lose some of his gear. And if his sword +5 stops working then either he gets the mage to cast Greater Magic Weapon or he pulls out his other sword. A good reason for anti-magic scabbards. A clever fighter might even expect to be subject to Disjunction and start by wielding a lesser blade.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 21, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Not wacky, just the standard power gaming build of an Int-based spell caster.




I don't think a wizard that wants to be able to cast 9th level spells is a power gamer.  Having a 17 or 18 int at first level is also not being a power gamer IMO.


----------



## AuraSeer (Nov 21, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> I think you're missing the player habituation. If your players are habituated to a thing then they need a reality check.



Wtf? That statement is worse than nonsense; I find it a bit offensive. You're supposed to be playing a game, not practicing amateur psychology on your friends. 

If you really see D&D as an excuse to try and condition your players, as if they were experimental rats in a psych lab, there is something seriously wrong with the situation.


----------



## Thurbane (Nov 21, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> Why do so many seem to be afraid of or against the spell _Mage's Disjunction_? So it destroys the PCs buffs and equipment; so what? They're still alive and unharmed (of course, a RBDM might put them in a hostile environment  ). And they can cast more spells. And they can get or create more items. At lower levels, it's a real BBEG spell. A one-shot item of _Mage's Disjunction_ should be well within the reach of a 10th level or so BBEG. After all, how's he going to keep his lieutenants in check?
> 
> "See here the Talisman of Ak-Zanar. It had the ability to destroy all magic but that of its wielder. Do you really want to face me?" _(Unsaid: "It only works once, and then departs to be found by someone else.")_
> 
> ...



It's the same as the hatred for Rust Monsters - 3E has promoted too much dependance on gear and loot, IMHO...


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 21, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Why are we defending a spell that wrecks half the party and leaves the other half basically untouched? Why as a DM would you want to highlight further how much better cleric, druid and wizard are than fighter and rogue? At a certain point, its just mean.




I agree. A DM who uses this spell is just being a total sadistic ass, just like the guy who designed the spell in the first place.

Even Wish is not this powerful (Wish is more versatile, but not this powerful). At worse, Disjunction should be a very high level Epic spell. At best, it should not exist in the game system. The spell is merely designed to hack off players.

Just because a given spell concept can be thought of does not mean that it should exist in the game system.


----------



## Particle_Man (Nov 21, 2006)

I think I would retire or, if that is not an option, "suicide" my fighter if he got Disjunctioned.  It would be too emotionally painful to play a gimped fighter when I could simply reroll a new character (perhaps a few levels lower), with his own magical gear.

As a DM, I would never use it.


----------



## Bad Paper (Nov 22, 2006)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> Wtf? That statement is worse than nonsense; I find it a bit offensive. You're supposed to be playing a game, not practicing amateur psychology on your friends.
> 
> If you really see D&D as an excuse to try and condition your players, as if they were experimental rats in a psych lab, there is something seriously wrong with the situation.



Clearly you're not a RBDM.  That's OK; it's something of an exclusive club.

Sunder, rust monster, destrachan, disenchanter, _disjunction_, steel predator...these things are the DM's *friends*!

And, by the way, if anyone wants to weigh in further on my disjunction thread, feel free.


----------



## Victim (Nov 22, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> Why do so many seem to be afraid of or against the spell _Mage's Disjunction_? So it destroys the PCs buffs and equipment; so what? They're still alive and unharmed (of course, a RBDM might put them in a hostile environment  ). And they can cast more spells. And they can get or create more items. At lower levels, it's a real BBEG spell. A one-shot item of _Mage's Disjunction_ should be well within the reach of a 10th level or so BBEG. After all, how's he going to keep his lieutenants in check?




Disjunction is so hated because of its effect on high level combat.  Destroying buffs and equipment is killing PCs in that case (actually, item destruction is probably worse than death - a true res might be worth about 30k, but even a strong Willed 20th level character will likely be losing more).  High level monsters have stats such that powerful items and buffs are required to stand a chance (if they didn't, the monsters would be easy meat for buffed characters) so the loss of buffs is crippling.  Also, baddies with a modicum of tactical ability will be following up the disjunction with attacks designed to exploit the stripped down defenses of its victims.  

Disjucntion's magic item destruction is uncontrolled.  If you want to take out older items (or any other specific subset), tough break.  Everything depends on how people roll on the saves so the overall loss in wealth and power is not likely to be evenly distributed.  So it's an awful way to control treasure.  Unless you think taking out a few potions from one character but disenchanting another character's best stuff is a good way to do things.

At level 10 or 7, it would be an issue, but not as much of one.  Moreover, a 10th level BBEG could likely get a lot more bang for buck with a different 9th level spell.  Having low (in relative terms) level guys with 9th level spells is probably the bigger issue in that case.  High power 1 shot items are a great way to kill BBEGs you know.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Nov 22, 2006)

I believe the problem is not the spell, but the dependence on equipment emphasized in 3E. MD is just a powerful spell like many others; spells at high level should be able to destroy magic items, nothing wrong with that. I would use some house rules, though, to make its use more acceptable both to GMs and PCs:

- Increased casting time: that would make the spell more of a storytelling tool (if you're the heroes, you should destroy a cleric's unholy mace, not sell it), not a combat resource for one-shot powerful NPCs. Note that this also helps against what I believe is the greatest pain with MD, stopping in the middle of the combat to recalculate everything that was screwed.

- Save bonus for signature items: destroying the holy avenger of the paladin or the sword of legacy of the fighter is not the same as destroying that +2 shadow studded leather armor the rogue just purchased in Sharn, and I believe the spell should take that into account. Maybe a +4 bonus in the saving throw to five items of each player's choice, or each player may choose one item his character owns not to be affected at all.

- Negative level effect: someone already suggested above suppressing magical power during a day, but I believe that's not scary enough. I'd use a mechanic similar to negative levels. Magic items are immediately suppressed if they fail the saving throw, and will remain this way the whole day. After that, another saving throw will determine if each item is permanently lost or regains its magical powers. This would allow players plenty of time to remove the suppression before the second saving throw, and a restoration-like spell would easily solve the problem.

My 2 cents,


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Nov 22, 2006)

It's one of those spells that I think dramatically suck down the fun level of the game.

Honestly, I also don't like the way Dispel Magic works.  After being on the recieving end of that one three and six times in a combat (or a ROUND) it just ... suuuuuuuuuuuuuucks.

I'd rather get hit with "your character is totally dead" than have to sit there for five minutes at the game table as the GM reads the littany of "Stuff You Wasted, And Math You Have To Do".  A buffed up character can have alot of bonuses and additions, and suddenly random spells are disappearing.

I'd rather get stuck in an Anti-Magic Field ... AMF means I pull out my base-line character sheet and keep going ... no rolling against the spells, no back and forth, no figuring out who cast what at what caster level ... 

My major beef with TDM is that it's a big chunk of "Combat Round Time" spent fugging over one PC with many many Rolls Of Fickle Fate.

Disjunction is like that, plus more.  You're losing alot of stuff that you've built your character around, you're waiting around while the GM goes through your high-level List O Magical Goods and reading the littany of Crap You Don't Got No More, and then you're hosing all of the buffs that your character may very well be depending on to survive.

This is not to mention at all that the Cleric spell list is toploaded with buff spells ... group and single-person buffs ... so a Disjunction can just blow out many many more spell slots on the receiving end than it puts down ... dozens of spell slots wiped out by one 9th level spell?  Yes please.  

This is why Enervation sucks so hard for Spellcasters, because each negative level is eating one of their highest-level-slots ... a TGDM or Disjunction is REALLY efficient for that ... "turn advantage".  You can cause the enemy to waste many rounds and spell levels of buffing with one round and one spell.

Additionally, these tactics are unfairly weighted AGAINST PCs ... "Monsters" and BBEGs and Outsiders and the usual High Level Foe don't work the same way that PCs work (mostly to make things simpler for the GM) ... they don't cast buffs, they just have better scores.  They don't use magical items, they just have random SLAs, they don't use magical swords, they just have 30hd and a 40Str score ... so it's pointless to Disjunct a badguy who may have two spells cast on him while hitting a party of PCs is going to get a whole buttload of spells and hundreds of thousands of GP in gear.

--fje


----------



## Sejs (Nov 22, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> Doesn't that add to the challenge? You go into an encounter sure of yourself, then suddenly you're on the back foot, but you conquer in the end. Isn't that so much more of an achievement?




Compare to: a spell that erases the half the contents of the wizard's spellbook.

If the system wern't so very gear dependent for the non-spellcasting classes it wouldn't be so big a deal.  As it stands, getting zeroed sucks.  Even if conquer in the end, much bigger achievement and all, you're still left with a bitter taste in your mouth because all your stuff's been hosed.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 22, 2006)

Giltonio_Santos said:
			
		

> I believe the problem is not the spell, but the dependence on equipment emphasized in 3E.



I don't see this as a 3e problem. Loss of magic equipment is a pain regardless of edition, and can be fatal if you happen to be fighting a powerful wizard, dragon or fiend, regardless of edition.

What is it about 3e that makes it more inherently equipment dependent than any previous edition?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 22, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> What is it about 3e that makes it more inherently equipment dependent than any previous edition?




It's hardwired into the rules now.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 22, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> It's hardwired into the rules now.



Well, since this is the Rules Forum, can I have a quote?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 22, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Well, since this is the Rules Forum, can I have a quote?




No, but it is in the DMG.  There is the table of wealth by level for instance.


----------



## Jack Simth (Nov 22, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I don't see this as a 3e problem. Loss of magic equipment is a pain regardless of edition, and can be fatal if you happen to be fighting a powerful wizard, dragon or fiend, regardless of edition.
> 
> What is it about 3e that makes it more inherently equipment dependent than any previous edition?



Because when they rebalanced the game, they had some amount of equipment in mind.  It mostly prevents monsters of appropriet CR from rolling over when the party hits them because the DM has no eye for balance, while mostly preventing monsters of appropriet CR from rolling over the party when it hits them because the DM had no eye for balance.  Wealth-by-level guidelines give an imperfect measure of the power of stuff, but it gives something measureable to check against a chart.  A DM who's not so grand with eyeing the effect equipment has on how difficult a given monster will be to take down now has something reasonably useful to look at to say it's in range of about right.  

As a side-effect, too little equipment for the level means that a critter that would otherwise be CR appropriet may very well roll over the party, and so the players expect to have something in the neighborhood of that level of equipment.  

A DM can change wealth levels, readily enough - but does so at his party's peril; you need a particularly good eye for judging power levels first.

Does that make sense?


----------



## FireLance (Nov 22, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> No, but it is in the DMG.  There is the table of wealth by level for instance.



There are also tables to determine random treasure. Except in very rare circumstances, the two will not agree, and a DM that specifically sets out to run a low wealth or a low magic campaign will likely ignore both.

What does underlie the rules is the assumption that a party of 4 level N characters armed with reasonably sensible gear worth approximately the standard wealth level of a level N character should be able to defeat an opponent of CR N after spending about 20% of their resources.

Slightly less general versions of this rule applied in previous editions, e.g. you need magic weapons to defeat a golem, more powerful magic items allow you to defeat more powerful monsters, etc.

So, what's changed?


----------



## FireLance (Nov 22, 2006)

Jack Simth said:
			
		

> Does that make sense?



Yes, but how is it different from previous editions? A DM with no eye for balance or power levels will cause problems for the PCs regardless of edition.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 22, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> There are also tables to determine random treasure. Except in very rare circumstances, the two will not agree, and a DM that specifically sets out to run a low wealth or a low magic campaign will likely ignore both.




The tables are there for the DMs using random tables so they can keep the power level of the PCs about right.  DM's that ignore the rules doesn't really matter to the rules in the DMG.  



> So, what's changed?




They looked at the fact that people liked magical items in the old editions and made it a requirement in 3.x


----------



## Crothian (Nov 22, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Yes, but how is it different from previous editions? A DM with no eye for balance or power levels will cause problems for the PCs regardless of edition.




Bad DMs are bad DMs if it has changed or not.  So, saying that a bad DM will mess it up doesn't prove anything.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Nov 22, 2006)

The old Mordenkainen's Disjunction, 9th level (Mage's Disjunction now?) was the terror of every high level group I was in.
  The enemy mage cast it, and ...

  The fighter lost his plate armor +3, shield +3, long sword +5, girdle of giant strength, and 5 healing potions.  He lost the Stoneskin and Infravision cast on him.
  The cleric lost her armor +4, shield +1, mace of disruption, cloak of displacement, helm of telepathy, rod of resurrection (30 charges!) and all her prepared scrolls of healing and protection (against various things.)  She also lost the effects of the Prayer and Bless spells she had put up, the mobile Protection from Evil, and the Negative Plane Protection as well.
  The wizard lost his cloak of protection +5, his ring of protection +3, his staff of the magi (35 charges!), his wand of lightning, his rod of cancellation, and his talisman of the sphere.  Also, his Stoneskin collapsed, along with his Haste, Fire Shield, one-way Wall of Force spell, Contingency spell, and that nifty Chromatic Blade spell (the blade it conjured disappeared.)
  The thief lost ... (etc.)

  All of this with no saving throw for any character, item, or spell effect allowed.  Presto, and the entire party is permanently Demagicked!
  Unless, of course, the party could cough up the money for about 5 or so Wishes to get all their items back, assuming they actually survived the battle with the Disjunction casting wizard ...

  Oh yes, the party had an artifact/relic:  the Ring of Gaax.  The enemy wizard was 19th level, so his Disjunction had a 19% chance of taking out the Sword.  And it DID take it out.
  No Wish spell will ever get the Ring of Gaax back!

  Back at that time, no Counterspell rule existed.  One could not counterspell Mordenkainen's Disjunction, could not ready an action to counterspell, could not Reactive Counterspell (or whatever that's called), could not make observation checks in the 3E sense to see what was coming, and otherwise could not do much of anything.
  The only thing you COULD do back then was appreciate it was an archmage you were facing, and HOPE TO GOD YOU WON INITIATIVE.

  Yeah, it was a terror spell.  

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 22, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> The old Mordenkainen's Disjunction, 9th level (Mage's Disjunction now?) ...



 There's something called d20 now.  Say hello to the System Reference Document.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Nov 22, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> I think you're missing the player habituation. If your players are habituated to a thing then they need a reality check.




Yes, I _so_ agree with you.  Surely only a loser would trust a DM to not suddenly change his habits and game style.  Trust is a crutch for the weak.

And if the DM decides to be an idiot or malicious or both, it can only be the players fault if they do not have fun.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Nov 22, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> They looked at the fact that people liked magical items in the old editions and made it a requirement in 3.x




I would not call it a requirement, so much as a guideline that reasonably reflects common preferences.

For all that some like to whine about the 3e wealth guidelines and how 3e officially enshrines giving the PCs so much wealth, I have never played in a long running 1e/2e campaign where I did not have much more loot than any "by the book" 3e campaign.


----------



## kenobi65 (Nov 22, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> There's something called d20 now.  Say hello to the System Reference Document.




What I2000 is referring to is that in the SRD, the proper names (which are still WotC intellectual property, and thus not part of the OGL) have been removed.

Thus, the spell is still referred to as Mordenkainen's Disjunction in the PHB, but Mage's Disjunction in the SRD.

(Similarly, the Quiver of Ehlonna becomes the Efficient Quiver, Keoghtum's Ointment becomes Restorative Ointment, etc.)


----------



## Mad Zagyg (Nov 22, 2006)

This spell comes up many times, on many forums. It is clearly an unbalanced spell. This is not to say it isn't useful in someone's campaign, but it definitely isn't something you want to be frequently throwing around.

I have pretty much disallowed it in most of my campaigns.

Here are the big problems as I see them:

1. It slows down game time in the most annoying way possible. I mean seriously, this spell doesn't get thrown at a party early in their careers - which means they are probably high level (10+). Typical characters at that level are going to be rolling through a helluva lot of magic items and losing a whole lot of 'em. Boring, aggravating, and unfair.

2. Characters with high Will Saving Throws are going to come out better than those who don't. Seems rather silly to base a powerful magic item's destruction on its wielder's saving throw. I realize that there are other situations where Reflex Saves are used to determine the fate of an item, but in this case it seems arbitrary and not well thought-out.

3. As has been mentioned previously, the caster (PC or NPC) probably shouldn't feel very comfortable casting the spell due to the possibility of someone in the group possessing an artifact of some kind - especially if either side consists of characters or villains of 15+ levels.

Hard to say if the spell should be fixed or dropped.

Any suggestions on how the "feel" of the spell can be maintained, but the above three issues can be avoided?


----------



## FireLance (Nov 22, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I would not call it a requirement, so much as a guideline that reasonably reflects common preferences.



And that, essentially, is what I've been driving at. The wealth by level table may be in the DMG, but I don't recall any advice along the lines of "The PCs must be this rich to play the game", or "If the PCs are below the suggested wealth, add more gold to the next randomly determined treasure".

In fact, in the 3.0e DMG (I'm away from my 3.5e DMG at the moment), the wealth by level table is brought up in the context of suggesting to the DM that one of the ways to maintain measurable control over the PC's power levels is to strictly monitor their wealth! Amazing how it's morphed from a tool to help the DM control PC power levels to a rule that requires DMs to hand out magic items.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 22, 2006)

Mad Zagyg said:
			
		

> Any suggestions on how the "feel" of the spell can be maintained, but the above three issues can be avoided?



Have it affect one item only with no save, and make it reversible with _wish_ or _miracle_.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 22, 2006)

It seems to me that the main problem with it is that it isn't used against players until they're high level. If it were used against them regularly (but infrequently) then they'd be used to it and have coping strategies. And 3rd Ed is much better than previous editions in that whereas in 2e, there were some monsters you couldn't hit without magic weapons, now it's simply DR, which a fighter can usually surpass. And the base material of the weapon is still important: a demagicked adamantine sword can still bypass a mage's stoneskin.


----------



## Victim (Nov 22, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> It seems to me that the main problem with it is that it isn't used against players until they're high level. If it were used against them regularly (but infrequently) then they'd be used to it and have coping strategies. And 3rd Ed is much better than previous editions in that whereas in 2e, there were some monsters you couldn't hit without magic weapons, now it's simply DR, which a fighter can usually surpass. And the base material of the weapon is still important: a demagicked adamantine sword can still bypass a mage's stoneskin.




You're right, it is all about expectations.  At low levels, I expect to lose nearly nothing from a Disjunction - the party will have a handful of buffs, and magic items are barely better than masterwork.  At high levels, I expect the group to lose dozens of spells and hundreds of thousands of GP, which will make an immediate and significant detrimental impact.  It's like a spell that does 1 damage to first level characters and 150 to high level ones.  Coping strategies at low levels basically aren't relevant anymore.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 22, 2006)

Darklone said:
			
		

> Dysjunction = Sunder = Game balance is threatened by too much or not enough treasure. If you allow the spell to be used widely, you have to counter the effect by allowing easy access to item crafting/buying and money. Now if you do that and don't use it enough, you have too much items.




I don't run games high level enough to see Mordenkainen's Disjunction used very often, but I always use the DMG guidelines to keep the PC equipment up to their level. 

Hence, if they lose their equipment for any reason, I compensate with raising the treasure later. It's actually really easy.

There is no permanent loss, which in my opinion is a good thing.
There is still a temporary penalty (because they obviously won't go back to the same equipment level very soon), which is enough to motivate them to take care of their equipment.


----------



## glass (Nov 22, 2006)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> What I2000 is referring to is that in the SRD, the proper names (which are still WotC intellectual property, and thus not part of the OGL) have been removed.



'Product Identity' (PI), not 'Intellectual Property' (IP). The SRD is still Wizards' intellectual property.

IANAL, TINLA.


glass.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Nov 22, 2006)

Less pity was shown to my groups by our old DMs.
  It was assumed that if you were high level, you knew well enough to avoid archmages, or - if you had to fight them - how to properly prepare for such a battle.
  Thus, if the party got hit with Mordenkainen's Disjunction (Mage's Disjunction) that was too bad.  Just count your lucky stars you somehow survived the fight anyways.

  LOL.  Yeah, it was dangerous in the old days.  If you messed with an archmage, you were history.  There were some things best left avoided, and among them were beholders, death knights, liches, ancient dragons, and ... archmages.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 22, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> LOL.  Yeah, it was dangerous in the old days.  If you messed with an archmage, you were history.  There were some things best left avoided, and among them were beholders, death knights, liches, ancient dragons, and ... archmages.




Actually, I strongly agree with this sentiment.

But at the same time, I realize that Disjunction is really an Epic level spell lowered to 9th level and I realize that people play the game to have fun.

It's one thing to lose to an Archmage or a Lich (assuming you at least had a chance to get some licks in). It's another to lose most of your equipment to Joe Average high level Wizard considering that at those levels, your own PC Wizard or Sorcerer is that powerful as well.

The other aspect of this is that the items get a Will save. That means that for many Clerics, Druids, and Monks, they will lose very little equipment, maybe even none. Wizards, Sorcerers and Paladins will typically lose slightly more. Fighter, Rogues, and Rangers will typically lose quite a bit more.

The spell is skewed to doubly screw certain classes of PCs: the type of PCs which are more reliant on equipment to survive at those levels.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 22, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> It seems to me that the main problem with it is that it isn't used against players until they're high level.



 Wait a minute, 9th-level spells not being used until high-level?  Are you suggesting that you should 'habituate' your players to expect 9th-level spells at low- or mid-levels? Oh, from a previous post it seems you, in fact, do hit your PCs with 9th-level spells at 7th-level.  How do they handle power word kill, gate (e.g. balor), and similar spells, I wonder?

It's trivial to obtain a TPK if that's what you're shooting for.  It's certainly not good DMing to plan it.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Nov 22, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Yeah, it was a terror spell.




Welcome to the land of 9th level ones, it usually hurts when they hit... 

Personally I think that the simple notion that being killed is better that losing equipment denounces a terrible bug on the way the system is handling both death and magic items. Either death should be more of a considerable punishment or characters should be less defined by how much bonuses they accumulate on item slots (maybe both...)

cheers,


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 22, 2006)

So, here's a question. Let's say I house ruled the spell in my game to suppress magic items for (say) one round per level, normal will save negates. What's the downside?

The biggest, I think, is that every fight will start with the PCs (or the NPCs) leading with this spell, and the will saves that go with it, as well as the constant rejiggering of stats as items stop working. 

That's just differently bad.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Nov 22, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Actually, I strongly agree with this sentiment.
> 
> But at the same time, I realize that Disjunction is really an Epic level spell lowered to 9th level and I realize that people play the game to have fun.
> 
> It's one thing to lose to an Archmage or a Lich (assuming you at least had a chance to get some licks in). It's another to lose most of your equipment to Joe Average high level Wizard considering that at those levels, your own PC Wizard or Sorcerer is that powerful as well.




Well, you make a statement that Disjunction should be epic level, but at the same time says that it will be cast by "Joe Average high level Wizard". Isn't "Joe Average high level Wizard" a character only to be seen on epic level games? Because a 17th+ wizard/18th+ sorcerer, to challenge player characters, should not be a Joe Average on the typical non-epic game...

If your DM is using wizards as powerful as Circle of Eight members in the average "encounter featuring magic users", the problem is not the spell, but the way the things that should be special and feel unique are being handled in the game.

cheers,


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 22, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> That's just differently bad.



 I agree, that houserule makes it even worse because it makes it 100% safe for the party to use.  They no longer have to worry about destroying the 'phat loot'.

Btw, I see a similar problem in Reaving Dispel, but I can't remember the exact wording off-hand.


----------



## Inconsequenti-AL (Nov 22, 2006)

Good point there Mr Piratecat!


I think the most elegant change might be to make it a 1 round casting time. Gives a window of opportunity to disrupt it?

Could always get into an arms race by introducing disjunctive buffering - like a dispel buffer, but more uber!


----------



## Henry (Nov 22, 2006)

I'll relate my recent experiences with Mord's Disjunction:

1) I used it (as DM) not once but TWICE in the climactic battle of Good & Evil in our Eberron game (about Characte level 15). One character managed to be in the area of effect, and he lost about 8 out of the 30-odd items he had on his person, and all buffs running on him. He was still a very effective character.

2) It was used by our Cleric in a 20th character level Forgotten Realms game, as we were desparate to stop an attacking epic-level lich. It undid all his spells, and the spells he had trapped the Barbarian with, but the Barbarian lost ONE item -- a set of Boots of Speed. He was still needless to say very effective.

One thing that people might be forgetting is that each item requires a save, using the character's save numbers. This means that only in the most unlucky of circumstances will ALL or even MOST of your items will be destroyed. Further, it usually only comes up in games of level 15 and higher; I certainly wouldn't use it lower than that, because to me it WOULD be unfair, just as it would be unfair to have 10th level PCs tackling a 20th level wizard and his preparations. Maybe as a campaign-ending thing, but not as a regular challenge.

In my opinion, by the time it comes into play, saves are high enough to where it doesn't spell the end of everything if one goes off. As DM I would adjust future challenges and wealth by level accordingly if it did, because to me the game is not a formulaic thing, but a dynamic project that I and the players work to tweak all the time.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Nov 22, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> So, here's a question. Let's say I house ruled the spell in my game to suppress magic items for (say) one round per level, normal will save negates. What's the downside?
> 
> The biggest, I think, is that every fight will start with the PCs (or the NPCs) leading with this spell, and the will saves that go with it, as well as the constant rejiggering of stats as items stop working.
> 
> That's just differently bad.




That's why I believe that a supression effect would only be useful if a risk of permanently losing items was used as well. Much like negative levels; you are temporarily hindered, but that may become a real problem if there's no restoration around and you fail your saving throw.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 22, 2006)

Giltonio_Santos said:
			
		

> Well, you make a statement that Disjunction should be epic level, but at the same time says that it will be cast by "Joe Average high level Wizard". Isn't "Joe Average high level Wizard" a character only to be seen on epic level games? Because a 17th+ wizard/18th+ sorcerer, to challenge player characters, should not be a Joe Average on the typical non-epic game...




Why not?

I expect 17th level PCs to run into 17th level enemy Wizards every once in a while.

I do not expect 17th level enemy Wizards to wipe out 10 levels worth of acquired items for half of the party with a single spell.

The spell is still epic in power. But by RAW, Joe Average 17th level Wizards (average for 17th level, not average for a campaign world) can cast it.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Nov 22, 2006)

There you have my point. Is it possible for 17th level characters to be just "the average"? I for one, would not treat them this way, and when preparing a combat against that character I'd take a lot into account. If story-wise, it made sense for him to prepare Disjunction, he'd prepare it and cast if necessary.

At the same time, I think D&D has enough high CR enemies to allow DMs not to use Wiz 17/Sor 18 against players without a good story reason to do that.

Surely the PCs have a chance of being stripped of equipment, but adventures should come with a degree of danger, and since D&D currently treats death more as a temporary nuisance than a real danger, a risk of losing precious magic items may well enter as the substitute.

Cheers,


----------



## Grenouillebleue (Nov 22, 2006)

Well I, for one, would have no qualms using Disjunction in one of my games.

Why ?

Because, like someone said, it can actually add to the gaming experience.

Have you noticed that "tough" DMs who don't hesitate to kill a character on a bad roll or a mistake are much more liked than "mellow" ones who always try to find a way out for their players ?

Have you ever wondered why that is ?

Many players (myself and my players included) get their kicks out of challenging encounters, intricate politics and actual risk. The fact that they know their fate hangs on their decisions and the roll of a dice is actually enough to make them sweat. And when they do succeed, they know that it's only through luck and skill, and not the whim of their DM. Hence the sweetness of victory. 

When you're playing with a nice DM who never kills players (or does it when there is absolutely no other choice since they screwed up so much), you won't enjoy your successes as much as you would have. A keen +4 rapier is worth that much more when it almost killed you in the hands of a skilled duelist.

Why am I speaking about death ? Because it's the same with disjunction. It could and should be used sometimes. Not always, because it has significant drawbacks for the BBEG. Your players won't use it because they want the loot, and your bad guys shouldn't as well - unless they're outmatched and it looks like their only chance.

But if they do use it, well, tough luck. Part of being a hero is facing this kind of challenge.


----------



## Psion (Nov 22, 2006)

Giltonio_Santos said:
			
		

> There you have my point. Is it possible for 17th level characters to be just "the average"?




Indeed.



> I for one, would not treat them this way, and when preparing a combat against that character I'd take a lot into account. If story-wise, it made sense for him to prepare Disjunction, he'd prepare it and cast if necessary.




Yep. If your GM is going to engineer the mage to screw you, you are screwed anyways.



> At the same time, I think D&D has enough high CR enemies to allow DMs not to use Wiz 17/Sor 18 against players without a good story reason to do that.




I have difficulty seeing a sorcerer spending its only 9th level known spell on MD.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 22, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Yep. If your GM is going to engineer the mage to screw you, you are screwed anyways.




An issue with MD is that the DM can screw you badly without intending to.


But, the main issue with MD is that the DM will almost definitely screw the fighter types and hardly harm the spell casting types. Again, he might do this unintentionally.

A 20th level Cleric without PrCs might have a Will save in the range of about +27. With a few PrCs, +30.

MD for a Wizard with a 30 Int has a DC of 29. The Cleric will often save 95% of the time.

A 20th level Fighter with or without PrCs (since most PrCs do not add to Will saves) might have a Will save of about +12 to +15. He can easily lose 60% to 80% of his items.

One class might lose at most 10% of his items and the other might lose at most 80%.

This is extremely skewed and can easily result in unintended *massive* screwing over of some PCs by the DM with a single spell.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 22, 2006)

Giltonio_Santos said:
			
		

> Surely the PCs have a chance of being stripped of equipment, but adventures should come with a degree of danger, and since D&D currently treats death more as a temporary nuisance than a real danger, a risk of losing precious magic items may well enter as the substitute.



 That's a classic design flaw.  If D&D treating "death more as a temporary nuisance than a real danger" is a problem in the game then it should be resolved directly, not by going elsewhere.  For example, if your car gets really poor gas mileage and that's a problem you want resolved, you should not just add a second gas tank.  The solution to death being trivial should not be, "let's find a different way to screw the PC", it should be "let's make death nontrivial."


			
				Grenouillebleue said:
			
		

> Because, like someone said, it can actually add to the gaming experience.



 Yes, it can add to the gaming experience by making that experience suck wind. 


			
				Grenouillebleue said:
			
		

> Many players (myself and my players included) get their kicks out of challenging encounters, intricate politics and actual risk.



 Wait, did I follow you correctly?  A "mellow" DM can't have intricate politics?  Or, are you just adding that in there?


			
				Grenouillebleue said:
			
		

> But if they do use it, well, tough luck. Part of being a hero is facing this kind of challenge.



 No, it's not.  There should be no correlation at all between death and mage's disjunction (besides being killed as a result of not being able to defend yourself or escape).


----------



## Ciaran (Nov 22, 2006)

Grenouillebleue said:
			
		

> Have you noticed that "tough" DMs who don't hesitate to kill a character on a bad roll or a mistake are much more liked than "mellow" ones who always try to find a way out for their players ?



No.  And by that, I don't mean that it's true and I haven't noticed it, but that in my experience, I have noticed that _it is not true_.  Thanks.


----------



## el-remmen (Nov 22, 2006)

Ciaran said:
			
		

> No.  And by that, I don't mean that it's true and I haven't noticed it, but that in my experience, I have noticed that _it is not true_.  Thanks.





But. . . But. . . He's describing me!

And as for the fear and hatred of disjunction. .. well, it is all about the style of game you play in.  I would destroy all of the party's magical items without a second thought, unless one or more of the items was some kind of McGuffin needed to move the current adventure along - and even then - I'd rather play out the consequences of that loss than pull my punches. 

Heck, I even have a _lesser_ version


----------



## Psion (Nov 22, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This is extremely skewed and can easily result in unintended *massive* screwing over of some PCs by the DM with a single spell.




I don't think you are understanding me.

This goes back to the classic carnard of DMs who put lethal effects in their games, but then fudge the dice when they are introduced. If you didn't want players to die in the first place, you shouldn't have put the lethal effect in the game. Same goes with MD. Unless the DM feels the current magic item load is out of balance, there is the opportunity to correct the balance, or the DM desires the imbalance, then the DM should not be putting MD in the game.

If you aren't willing to endure the effects of any trap, plot twist, monster, etc., would logically introduce, you shouldn't be putting it in the game.


----------



## Inconsequenti-AL (Nov 22, 2006)

Grenouillebleue said:
			
		

> Well I, for one, would have no qualms using Disjunction in one of my games.
> 
> Why ?
> 
> ...




Personally, I feel you citing 2 opposite ends of the DM scale?  

On the one hand, it's a never kill GM.

On the other, it's someone who will kill you.

IMO there's a wide gulf of playtypes between the two.

I'd lean a little towards the second type. Although there's a lot of ifs/buts and how does this work to that? 

Personally, my ideal territory is 'fair' encounters, played viciously. With a sneaking feeling that the GM is rooting for us, but won't fudge things! 



Back on topic - 100% agree with your conclusion - something to be used in moderation. Has downsides for the BBEGs as well and that does need to be bourne in mind... nothing worse than NPCs being played like disposable one shot villans (unless theres a good reason for it).


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 22, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> If you aren't willing to endure the effects of any trap, plot twist, monster, etc., would logically introduce, you shouldn't be putting it in the game.




100% agreed.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 22, 2006)

Inconsequenti-AL said:
			
		

> Personally, my ideal territory is 'fair' encounters, played viciously. With a sneaking feeling that the GM is rooting for us, but won't fudge things!




This is the best way I have ever heard this described.

Although, I think I would phrase it just a little bit differently:

Personally, my ideal territory is 'fair' encounters, played viciously. With a sneaking feeling that the GM is rooting for the bad guys, but won't fudge things! 


If the DM is rooting for the bad guys as opposed to the players, then he will not "subconsciously" fudge things in the PCs favor. If anything, he will pick the best possible tactic he can conceive of for the bad guys given the NPC's knowledge and the current situation. Remembering that the DM has to often play more than one NPC in an encounter, it is easier for him to make sub-optimal decisions just due to the heavy workload and the newness / unfamiliarity of many encounters. Players, on the other hand, tend to only play one PC (and possibly a cohort) over many gaming sessions, hence, they are more familiar and experienced with their tactics.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 22, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> How do they handle power word kill, gate (e.g. balor), and similar spells, I wonder?




A 10th level BBEG can easily have access to _Wish_ (from an Efreet) and the like. They can have _Gate_ from a _Candle of Invocation_ or _Bead of Karma_. The Balor might not come himself but send a minion. _Power Word Kill_ will kill one PC, but does not prevent Ressurection. _Wail of the Banshee_ is easily countered, if you're prepared. As in most enterprises, if the PCs just rush in, they're much more likely to fail. They're going up against the BBEG, so he should have something special. And you know what? Running away is sometimes a really good tactic; then the PCs can come back later, and this time he's already used his one-shot item.

You not only simply don't like players to lose their stuff, but you don't like them to have a chance of losing their stuff.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Nov 22, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> You not only simply don't like players to lose their stuff, but you don't like them to have a chance of losing their stuff.




We'll put it this way:

One can run many types of fun RPG game sessions in which one does not piss off the player base.

One cannot run any type of RPG game session if one HAS pissed off the player base.

I have whole bucketfulls of interesting and fun things to do with my RPG, things that the players find challenging, engaging, and fun.  Janking their spells and equipment with one spell is challenging, but not particularly engaging or fun.  YMMV, but I wouldn't say my games have particularly suffered because that one spell doesn't get tossed around alot.

--fje


----------



## Sejs (Nov 22, 2006)

'Efreet', 'wish' and 'easily' rarely belong in a sentance together.


----------



## Psion (Nov 22, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> 'Efreet', 'wish' and 'easily' rarely belong in a sentance together.




Sure they do. "You can _easily_ screw things up trying to extract a _wish_ from an _efreet_." See?


----------



## Kilroy (Nov 22, 2006)

Disjunction would be a balanced spell if it worked as Dispel Magic with a 100% success rate and did not affect items.  Unfortunantly, it does affect items, and with the commodification of magic in d20 and the expectations that places on the power of high level challenges, it has a wide variety of effects that are detrimental to game play.  In the group of people I play with and around, I've heard of it being used twice.  The first time, it was as a CR9 trap in a game of about that level, on a day the rogue wasn't there, and the campaign ended as a result.  The second time, with a different group, it was cast on a high level party, debuffing the divine casters and the monk but destroying every magic item on the barbarian, causing that player to leave the game in frustration.

I think it's the worst spell in 3.5, entirely because of the rather sad direct convertability between magic, money and power and the regretable crippling dependency on 'stuff' rather than 'self' that high level melee characters face.  Particularly in published modules with no way to regain the lost wealth, a melee character that is Disjoined has no way to recover that lost power, which is nearly the entirity of their character ability, and the party is generally better off if that player leaves the game or starts a new character.

It is designed to inflict crippling, irreperable damage (AFAIK, Wish can not reenchant items any better than it can create them in the first place) on a party, and it has the same effect on a fighter as something that would erase wizard spell slots, make gods forsake their clerics or make rogues forget their skills.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 22, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> A 20th level Cleric without PrCs might have a Will save in the range of about +27. With a few PrCs, +30.
> 
> MD for a Wizard with a 30 Int has a DC of 29. The Cleric will often save 95% of the time.
> 
> A 20th level Fighter with or without PrCs (since most PrCs do not add to Will saves) might have a Will save of about +12 to +15. He can easily lose 60% to 80% of his items.



Now that's a reasonable issue, on the face of it, but I don't believe it stands up to scrutiny. The fighter-types can take feats (e.g. Iron Will, Force of Personality) or dips in other classes (e.g. Monk, Knight - a 2 level dip in Knight gives you +3 Will and no loss to BAB) to boost their Will saves. A Ftr 16 / Kt 2 / Mk 2 has a base Will save of +11 and a BAB of +19

If Disjunction is cast from an item, then it gets cast as INT 19, Level 17, for a DC of 23. Not nearly so bad. Consider a Ftr 6 / Kt 2. His base Will save is +5, he'll have a couple of +3 items and buffs to add to his save for a total save of +11, or more. So he can expect to lose half his gear, probably less. That's without feats or bonus from stats. Consider a Paladin 6 / Kt 2 with Cha 16. His base Will save is +8. Again, add in items and buffs - particularly Eagle's Splendour - and his will save is going to be +16 or more. Again, without feats or bonus from stats. So he can expect to lose a quarter or less of his items. Which, of course, will be made good once they've plundered the BBEG's treasury.


----------



## Ciaran (Nov 22, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> Now that's a reasonable issue, on the face of it, but I don't believe it stands up to scrutiny. The fighter-types can take feats (e.g. Iron Will, Force of Personality) or dips in other classes (e.g. Monk, Knight - a 2 level dip in Knight gives you +3 Will and no loss to BAB) to boost their Will saves. A Ftr 16 / Kt 2 / Mk 2 has a base Will save of +11 and a BAB of +19



So, fighter-types should completely redesign their builds solely to defend against a single spell?  That's a classic sign of brokenness.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Nov 23, 2006)

Ciaran said:
			
		

> So, fighter-types should completely redesign their builds solely to defend against a single spell?  That's a classic sign of brokenness.




No, they should also redesign for better will saves because it sucks to be dominated to slash the poor little wizard at your side in tiny pieces with that +5 greatsword.

Fighters have tons of feats, spending one or two to improve a saving throw that becomes more deadly as you advance in levels should be no big deal... 

Cheers,


----------



## Quartz (Nov 23, 2006)

Ciaran said:
			
		

> So, fighter-types should completely redesign their builds solely to defend against a single spell?  That's a classic sign of brokenness.



No, I'm pointing out that it's easy for a character to boost their saves. You could apply the same for a rogue and Fort saves, for instance. And there are plenty of spells that give Will saves which need to be guarded against.


----------



## Grenouillebleue (Nov 23, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Wait, did I follow you correctly?  A "mellow" DM can't have intricate politics?  Or, are you just adding that in there?




Intricate politics as in "a wrong word at the wrong time might bring you to the gallows" cannot be done if your DM isn't prepared to go through it.

A perfect example of this (though not P&P) is the trial you face in NWN2. There's no way you can lose it, which makes all your answers meaningless. When people cheer you at the end and say you're not guilty, well... there's no sense of achievement there.


----------



## Montague68 (Nov 23, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Story focused games tend to define the characters by what they are moreso then the equipment they have.  So, sure the characters will be under equiped for a while but the players don't feel that their fighter is 30% of a man now.  The players will then enjoy the challenge as the story takes a twist and they have to figure out what to do next.




In said "story focused game" have the players make opposed diplomacy rolls with the BBEG. For every failed roll the player loses his henchman, lover/spouse, stronghold, mentor, noble rank, land, citizenship, etc. *permanently*. That's the equivalent effect of Disjunction in a more item-based game. Would those players in that story-focused game just roll with the punches and accept a year or more of hard work in that campaign wiped out with one die roll? I doubt it. But yet more item-concerned players should just suck it up and deal with it because it's a _challenge_.

Trying to roleplay when I'm hitting you in the face with a brick is a challenge but then that's not very fun either is it?


----------



## Grenouillebleue (Nov 23, 2006)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> accept a year or more of hard work in that campaign wiped out with one die roll?




That's the second time I see this word on this thread, so I had to butt in.

Hard work ?
I really feel for you.

In a MMORPG, you could use this argument since you have to invest some time doing stuff you don't especially like (farming, crafting...) to compete.

But in a Pen 'n Paper RPG, the goal is to have fun. So you shouldn't have any 'hard work' destroyed.


----------



## Particle_Man (Nov 23, 2006)

One can have fun through the produced character (a character lovingly and carefully built up over time) as well as the process (the hours of playing the game).  the Disjunction spell does not retroactively ruin the fun of the process, but can ruin the present and possibly future fun of playing the produced character.  Unless you play a series of one-shot adventures with new pregenerated characters every single time.

A little like spending time painting the mona lisa, and then having someone stab the painting with a knife.  Yet there is a point to the process of creating the work of art, but you would also want to have the product undamaged.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 23, 2006)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> Would those players in that story-focused game just roll with the punches and accept a year or more of hard work in that campaign wiped out with one die roll? I doubt it.




It's not being wiped out.  The spell is not going back in time and taking away all the fun we had for the past year.  The spell is not destroying plots or sessions, it's just taking out some equipment.  Equipment can be replaced.  Go down to the local 7-11 magic store and buy more.  Take a side adventure into the dungeon of magical treasure that exists in all campaign worlds.  

I think this is more that there are players that cannot accept bad things happening to their character.  And that's fine.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 23, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> A little like spending time painting the mona lisa, and then having someone stab the painting with a knife.  Yet there is a point to the process of creating the work of art, but you would also want to have the product undamaged.




This is the bottom line that the "story focused" argument is lame in comparison to.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Nov 23, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I think this is more that there are players that cannot accept bad things happening to their character.  And that's fine.




Indeed.



			
				Gearjammer said:
			
		

> In said "story focused game" have the players make opposed diplomacy rolls with the BBEG. For every failed roll the player loses his henchman, lover/spouse, stronghold, mentor, noble rank, land, citizenship, etc. permanently. That's the equivalent effect of Disjunction in a more item-based game. Would those players in that story-focused game just roll with the punches and accept a year or more of hard work in that campaign wiped out with one die roll? I doubt it. But yet more item-concerned players should just suck it up and deal with it because it's a challenge.




I think you're kind of exagerating things a little bit. I believe that a better comparison would be to say "have the player manage a will saving throw against a 9th level spell or he'll just be erased from the memory of all henchman, lover/spouse, stronghold, mentor, noble rank, land, citizenship, etc. he has". As a story focused player, I believe this approach to be not only challenging, but quite interesting, and I'd love to play to recover everything I'd have lost to the spell.

Cheers,


----------



## Philip (Nov 23, 2006)

How about the spell halting play for at least 30 minutes (in high level parties) while all magic items and active spells are rolled for one by one to see if they are destroyed by the disjunction?  And then the subsequent adjusting of all the stats when players try to account for their lost gear. It's just a headache for DM and player alike.

The only DM's I see use the spell are those who are playing a kind of competitive game with their players, or those who use it as a cheap device to instill fear in their players.

It's a game-stopper spell. In more ways then one.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Nov 23, 2006)

Philip said:
			
		

> How about the spell halting play for at least 30 minutes (in high level parties) while all magic items and active spells are rolled for one by one to see if they are destroyed by the disjunction?  And then the subsequent adjusting of all the stats when players try to account for their lost gear. It's just a headache for DM and player alike.
> 
> The only DM's I see use the spell are those who are playing a kind of competitive game with their players, or those who use it as a cheap device to instill fear in their players.
> 
> It's a game-stopper spell. In more ways then one.




I understand your point; in fact, I've suggested various house rules for Disjunction earlier, as I'm concerned with the time consuming effect of the spell much like you. I also think, though, that banning disjunction from the game just to assure players will not cry over the magic items they've been farming from dungeons for the last year is not reasonable.

As a DM, I try to accommodate my own style to the playing style of the other people, but I also build my own expectations about players I'd like to DM for, and my ideal players should envision lots of things in my game that are more important or interesting than having +5 swords.

Thinking of playing style, I know that I'd not use Disjunction while DMing to the people here who have already shown their hatred of the spell, but the assumption that "The only DM's I see use the spell are those who are playing a kind of competitive game with their players, or those who use it as a cheap device to instill fear in their players" is also false, because it makes it seem like the only existing play style is one focused in accumulating magic items and boosting combat abilities.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 23, 2006)

Philip said:
			
		

> How about the spell halting play for at least 30 minutes (in high level parties) while all magic items and active spells are rolled for one by one to see if they are destroyed by the disjunction?  And then the subsequent adjusting of all the stats when players try to account for their lost gear. It's just a headache for DM and player alike.



Can I suggest you need to be better organised? As mentioned earlier in the thread, a simple remedy is to have a sheet of d20 rolls pre-rolled so you just tick them off in turn. You should also have a list of all the players' items and spells in effect. And recalculating stats etc is hardly difficult and can be readily done by the player while others have their turn.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 23, 2006)

Giltonio_Santos said:
			
		

> the assumption that "The only DM's I see use the spell are those who are playing a kind of competitive game with their players, or those who use it as a cheap device to instill fear in their players" is also false, because it makes it seem like the only existing play style is one focused in accumulating magic items and boosting combat abilities.



QFT


----------



## Slaved (Nov 23, 2006)

Disjunction is simply a series of unreasonable abilities in a single spell.

Look at the progression for spells.

First we have dispel magic which hits a single target for a chance at each of the spells on it, or it can hit a 20' radius area and possibly take out a single effect from each creature in the effect, or it can try to counterspell. Each of these effects maxes out at +10 to the check.

Next we have greater dispel magic which does the same but with a cap of +20. It can also act as a remove curse spell.

These are 3rd level and 6th level respectively normally.

At 9th we come upon disjunction. It works in a 40' radius burst, so it effects 4x the area of the other dispels. Spells in this area are automatically dispelled, no check. It actually destroys magical items in its area, although at least those get a save. It can kill an antimagic field, if it succeeds then those in the area are subjected to the disjunction. It can destroy artifacts.

This is not a step up like dispel to greater dispel, it is leaps and bound above.

I feel that removing the spells automatically is unreasonable, especially in such a large area.

I feel that destroying so many items at once potentially is unreasonable. Most effects can only kill one item at a time potentially, being able to destroy a nearly unlimited number at once is not reasonable.

I feel that destroying artifacts is unreasonable. Artifacts are special and should only be able to be destroyed in a special way. Preferably through a difficult quest.


For this spell to be reasonable I think it should be something like this:
Chance to destroy antimagic field.
Chance to dispel each spell in the area with a higher cap than greater dispel magic but with a smaller radius.
Work as break enchantment but with a higher level of potential effect.
Work as remove curse.
Chance to surpress the abilities of artifacts in the area for d4 rounds.


This is much weaker than the regular disjunction but it still much stronger than greater dispel magic. It is even a much larger jump from greater dispel magic to disjunction than it was from dispel to greater dispel.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Nov 23, 2006)

And it doesn't sound like a 9th level spell for me.

Besides, magic in D&D was never meant to follow a fair progression. At 9th level, a cleric goes from the ability to heal 4d8+8 damage to a target to the ability to raise that same target from the dead. Seems logical? I don't think so...

cheers,


----------



## Victim (Nov 23, 2006)

Giltonio_Santos said:
			
		

> And it doesn't sound like a 9th level spell for me.
> 
> Besides, magic in D&D was never meant to follow a fair progression. At 9th level, a cleric goes from the ability to heal 4d8+8 damage to a target to the ability to raise that same target from the dead. Seems logical? I don't think so...
> 
> cheers,




No, he gets AoE healing at 9th level, not cure critical.  Also, considering the problems of Raise Dead, keeping people alive is generally much better than Raising them.  So the distinction is hardly clear cut.  On the other hand, Disjunction seems out of line compared to other 9th level spells.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Nov 23, 2006)

Victim said:
			
		

> No, he gets AoE healing at 9th level, not cure critical.  Also, considering the problems of Raise Dead, keeping people alive is generally much better than Raising them.  So the distinction is hardly clear cut.  On the other hand, Disjunction seems out of line compared to other 9th level spells.




As I said, he's going _from_ cure critical, not _to_ it... And he learns to use magic to bring back the dead; I don't know how much of a problem being dead really is (no big deal in D&D, I believe), but being able to raise people is generally better than just being able to heal them as long as they are still above the -10.

Also, I don't think that Disjunction is more powerful than other 9th level spells, is just that death appears to mean nothing at that level, and the D&D system relies on equipment instead of personal power to provide game balance, but the main concept (the supreme dispel) is perfectly in line with the kind of things I would expect from wizards who can kill with a word, imprison (which happens to be more scary than death), and grant wishes (even if they're now very limited, when compared to the open-ended version of 2E).

Cheers,


----------



## Slaved (Nov 23, 2006)

Giltonio_Santos said:
			
		

> And it doesn't sound like a 9th level spell for me.
> 
> Besides, magic in D&D was never meant to follow a fair progression. At 9th level, a cleric goes from the ability to heal 4d8+8 damage to a target to the ability to raise that same target from the dead. Seems logical? I don't think so...




That list of very impressive effects doesnt sound 9th level to you? As compared to what exactly? It still looks to be much more impressive than wish just not as versitile over all.

The spells you are comparing dont really have much in common though. On one hand you have a spell which can heal someone living from near death up to full health instantly vs another spell which can turn a formerly living, mostly intact object into an again living creature with a con loss or a level loss over the course of a minute with a 5k gp cost.

While they both the healing descriptor they have very different functions, time frames, and costs.

To compare healing of 4th to 5th you have cure critical at 4th and cure light mass at 5th. Raise dead is mostly by itself in its capacity and not directly comparable. I believe there is a spell of a lesser level somewhere that brings people back who have died a very short time before casting, perhaps you should compare it to that instead?


I think what you were going for though is that you expect spells to get better as levels increase, which is true, and they do. I made the comparison with dispel, greater dispel, and disjunction because I see them all following the same curve. Disjunction as it is now is so far outside of that curve though it is ridiculous. Even the version I put up as a fix is incredibly strong and a bit outside of the curve but at least it is more reasonable.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Nov 23, 2006)

Slaved said:
			
		

> I think what you were going for though is that you expect spells to get better as levels increase, which is true, and they do. I made the comparison with dispel, greater dispel, and disjunction because I see them all following the same curve. Disjunction as it is now is so far outside of that curve though it is ridiculous. Even the version I put up as a fix is incredibly strong and a bit outside of the curve but at least it is more reasonable.




What I wanted to state is that D&D spells don't follow a logical curve.

Mass healing may be the direct comparison to critical healing, but my point is that from one level to the other we go from fairly potent healing (not enough to bring your fighter to full HP, I believe) to raising the dead (which some cultures would see as a miracle); and that's one miserable level. So, saying that disjunction is ridiculous because you'd expect something weaker only three levels above greater dispelling is not a reasonable point at the D&D system, since it never really cared about a logical progression of spell power.

Cheers,


----------



## Slaved (Nov 23, 2006)

Giltonio_Santos said:
			
		

> What I wanted to state is that D&D spells don't follow a logical curve.




Sure they do, all of the time. At its most basic spells get more powerful the higher up you go in levels. Sometimes they do not follow it well, but if you look at other spells of the same level and the spells of the level before you can judge about what it should be doing.

Disjunction is way over the top. The only spells I can think of offhand which are in the same ballpark are Gate and Shapechange, which are both overpowered as written as well.



			
				Giltonio_Santos said:
			
		

> Mass healing may be the direct comparison to critical healing, but my point is that from one level to the other we go from fairly potent healing (not enough to bring your fighter to full HP, I believe) to raising the dead (which some cultures would see as a miracle); and that's one miserable level.




But you are almost literally comparing apples to oranges. Those spells have completely different effects and different costs. One is a change of state with massive penalties and the other is a change of a variable number which only matters when it hits certain thresholds.

We have the progression for healing there. It gets stronger each level and at some point it jumps up to being weaker for healing individually but heals multiple people.

We also know about the time that being able to undo a certain status effect happens. 4th level is reincarnation and at 5th level we have raise dead, albeit for two seperate classes.

Hp recovery vs status change. They just aren't directly comparable here because you are switching effects and saying one is greater than the other. 4d8+9 could heal someone from -9 (the literal deaths door) up to full hp with a single touch and standard action for the lowly cost of a 4th level slot vs raise dead which takes a minute, 5k gp worth of diamond, a 5th level slot, and either a level or 2 constitution points from the subject. Very different costs, very different effects, completely different parts of the healing spectrum. The poor guy that just got raised likely wants someone to cast a hit point healing spell on him now as well.



			
				Giltonio_Santos said:
			
		

> So, saying that disjunction is ridiculous because you'd expect something weaker only three levels above greater dispelling is not a reasonable point at the D&D system, since it never really cared about a logical progression of spell power.




I listed my reasoning about why each was bad and how to fix them along with a reasoning about a progression that is more in line with other progressions. If you feel that the reasonings are imperfect that is fine, but there are progressions there and there are other effects to compare with about how to get them. Along with the costs associated with each.

For a single 9th level spell we would expect very impressive effects, but those effects should be balanced on what it costs. Being able to take out any number of items, spells already cast, and artifacts is simply much too much for a 9th level slot that is merely a standard action with no extraneous costs such as exp. It doesnt have a focus or a spell component either. If you don't care about selling opponents gear, and that should not be used as a balance reason either way, then the only reason to not use it is that you are worried about them having an artifact which will then have a 17% chance of being effected and then get a saving through to avoid the effect and then, if it works, you get a saving through to avoid the bad things happening to you.

What other spells even come close to being able to change the effective challenge rating of a party by such a large amount so easily?


----------



## Quartz (Nov 23, 2006)

Slaved said:
			
		

> What other spells even come close to being able to change the effective challenge rating of a party by such a large amount so easily?



Wish can be far more effective in this. Likewise Anti-Magic Shell. Anti-magic Shell is only a 6th level spell too. Anti-Magic Shell + Death Fog (or any old poison gas) created outside the AMS and flowing down into it is a killer. At least for those who haven't bothered doing anything with their Fort saves.

As I've shown, a well-rounded character is going to be significantly resistant to Disjunction.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 23, 2006)

I totally agree with Slaved's analysis; _mordenkainen's disjunction_ represents a big jump in power; clearly it is an epic spell somehow reassigned to 9th level.  But it has lots of flavor, and I'd hate to replace it with just a _superior dispel magic_.

Two things that might help improve _mage's disjunction_ are the following:

Grant armor, shields and weapons a bonus to their save equal to their enhancement bonus (including special abilities).  The _+5 axiomatic longsword of speed_ thus gets +10. The barbarian wielding it might still fail the save, but in that case;
Grant the item a secondary save 24 hours later.  The item uses its own Will save vs DC 20. If it makes the save, it was only suppressed, not destroyed.
The first suggestion will tilt the field back toward the fighter types.  I think it is especially important that weapons survive; without magical enhancements to overcome DR, a lot of creatures just can't be hit.  (Well, you could use power attack.  But if you have lost your weapon bonus and strength buffing items, you won't be able to hit the monster if you do that).

And while a fighter type who rolls poorly may lose a lot of items, there is a good chance that they will come back the next day.  Items all have good saves (2 + CL/2) so a decent item should have a good chance of recovering.  For instance, going by the price of a _sunblade_ it is about a +5 equivalent.  CL 10, so the base save is 7.  Beating a 20 with a +12 bonus is fairly good odds.  Better than losing it outright, anyway.

However, the DC 20 secondary save is high enough that a lot of loot would be in danger of being lost.  Especially non-martial items that would be attractive to spellcasters.  A _periapt of wisdom +6_ is only CL 8, so it has a +6 bonus vs DC 20.  I think that PCs and NPCs would be hesitant to use the spell except in extreme circumstances.  And that is for the good.

As for recalculating character sheets, people should know what their character is like with no spells cast on them.  Changes from suppressed items shouldn't take that long to calculate.


----------



## Slaved (Nov 23, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> Wish can be far more effective in this.




Give a few examples please. I can see versitile, and said so earlier as it is definately better for other things, but more effective at what it does?

Spend 5k exp to get a +1 bonus to a stat or possibly ruin all of the enemies stat boosters all at once with no exp cost. Spend 5k exp to duplicate a lower level spell is likely only worth it in emergency situations. Spend 5k exp to get 25k gp worth of nonmagical stuff? That doesnt seem terribly effective generally. Create a magical item by spending 5k exp + 2*exp it would take to create the item is great for emergencies as well, but more effective?

Much more versitile, for that there can be no arguement, but disjunction is the king supreme of immediate destruction for a small relative cost.



			
				Quartz said:
			
		

> As I've shown, a well-rounded character is going to be significantly resistant to Disjunction.




Well, lets see. A high level character is likely to have well over 20 magical items. If they have a 5% chance of failure for the save then they are losing at least one item on average. If that item happens to be something that they were really counting on, such as a fighter types primary weapon or armor, they they could be in major trouble. 

In a party of 4 characters we are likely looking at atleast four items being destroyed. This could easily be several hundred thousand gp worth of items right away. Ouch! Wish costs the caster 5k exp in order to get its effects, disjunction could cost the opposition hundreds of thousands of gp and a huge amount of exp.

Plus there doesnt look to be any way to resist having all of your active spells disjoined. This basically neuters an entire type of build all at once without a chance for a save or being able to stop it.


All of these effects put together simply break part of the game in my opinion. Spells automatically dispelled for everyone in the opposing party is very bad. Chance of destroying a large amount of gear easily and thereby negating entire characters is very bad. Chance of destroying artifacts outside of the other rules for them is somewhat upsetting and outside of the normal flavor of the game, mortal magic and all that.

I just dont like it. I don't see any reason for it to be the way that it is. If it had a real cost associated with it maybe. Such as the caster loses exp for each item destroyed and for each spell dispelled, then at least it would be a tough call whether to do it or not.


----------



## Slaved (Nov 23, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I totally agree with Slaved's analysis




Thanks!



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I'd hate to replace it with just a _superior dispel magic_.




I can understand that, but there has to be some sort of cost for using it if it has all of those very powerful abilities rolled together.

It could have different modes which are able to get rid of different effects, just not all of them at once.

If it was targetted that would be a very large drawback as well.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 24, 2006)

I've never used the spell as a player or DM, in any incarnation of the game.

My personal take on the spell is its not so bad for the full spellcasters, but everyone else had best duck & cover...and use loaded dice!  

Don't get me wrong- I understand the desire to have this kind of spell out there.  I'm just not sure there is a way to have it be cast on a party and have a fun evening with the probable end results.  I'm also not sure there's a good tweek for it.

Whoever it was who said its an Epic spell in disguise had the right of it.

The warrior archetype in 3.X is extremely gear dependent- nothing new there. This one spell could change a challenging encounter to a near TPK.

If, however, there were intrinsic ways warriors and other gear-dependent combatants could overcome DR and similar defenses, there wouldn't be as much of an issue.  For example, if there were a Feat Tree that allowed the user to overcome DR, the loss of that +4 magic weapon wouldn't be as problematic.  Sure, the warrior won't be able to hit as often as he could before the spell, but he won't be virtually powerless to control his fate.

Grapple & other special maneuvers?  Have fun doing that against a spellslinging dragon, or a demon summoning his kin...


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 24, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> Can I suggest you need to be better organised? As mentioned earlier in the thread, a simple remedy is to have a sheet of d20 rolls pre-rolled so you just tick them off in turn. You should also have a list of all the players' items and spells in effect. And recalculating stats etc is hardly difficult and can be readily done by the player while others have their turn.




Uh huh.

In fact, while the DM is at it, he might as well determine before the game even starts which items are destroyed and which are not. Then, he should hand out new character sheets with all of the new ability score and other calculations already made. Saves a lot of time.

While he's at it, he should probably just determine the entire session ahead of time and recite what happens to his players.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 24, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Uh huh.
> 
> In fact, while the DM is at it, he might as well determine before the game even starts which items are destroyed and which are not. Then, he should hand out new character sheets with all of the new ability score and other calculations already made. Saves a lot of time.
> 
> While he's at it, he should probably just determine the entire session ahead of time and recite what happens to his players.




It is a long way from rolling a few dice ahead of time to predetermining the whole session for everyone.  Rolling dice ahead of time changes nothing, except saving some time.  (Unless you don't trust the DM and think he'll cheat.  And if that's the case you have bigger issues).  The other is total lack of player free will.

I think players that use a lot of buffs and lots of magical equipment need to be preapred for losing it assuming the game has ways to lose it.  If a player slows down the game for an hour becasue he was not prepared then I'd treat it the same way for a player that has his spell list not prepared.  I move ahead without him.  Having players prepared is not out of the question in my mind.  But again, different people have different play styles and that's cool.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Nov 24, 2006)

I have no sympathy for high level parties (or even mid level parties) that get a Mordenkainen's Disjunction / Mage's Disjunction thrown at them.  The only regret I have is that items are now allowed a saving throw:  in the old version, NO save and NO appeal.

  If the party is going to DELIBERATELY provoke the anger of an archmage, what should they expect?
  If the party is going to bring all their magical items along, what should they expect?  (in the old days, a simple Fireball could Demagick the party.)
  If the party is going to make no preparations for such a dark day, what should they expect?

  Most liches are stay at home types.  If you don't bother them, they won't bother you.  If you *insist* on bothering them, then ... well ... they get mad.
  Most archmages are not concerned with adventurers (they have other archmages to contend with, plus insundry assorted plotting, magical item creation, and other things.)  But if a party must crash an archmage's stronghold, then ... well ... a certain fate is decreed.

  Back in my day, if all you got nailed with was Mordenkainen's Disjunction, you were LUCKY.  In 3.0, you'd be even MORE LUCKY as the wizard is more powerful than in 2E.
  Would you prefer, perhaps, the old Time Stop?  (TPK, no appeal, game over.)
  Would you prefer, perhaps, Gate?  (Demogorgon shows up, TPK ensues.)
  Would you prefer, perhaps, Internal Fires (burnt to a cinder along with all items, no save.)
  Or how about the old Bigby's Crushing Hand (squashed to a pulp, no save), Blade in the Soul (puppet of enemy wizard or death, your choice, no save), Prismatic Sword (take a wild guess!), Algarth's Embattlement (4 disintegrates hurled simultaneously at the whole party), or how about the old Shapechange (enemy mage turns into tarrasque, eats party) or Prismatic Sphere (enemy mage is invincible) or the old Power Word Kill (insta-kill, no save, no resurrection)?

  Nay.  If all it is, is Mage's Disjunction (even if all your items are toast because the DM uses the old version of the spell) you can at least use Wishes to regain those lost items.
  If it's a TPK, there isn't terribly much you can do.

  Back in my day, here were some of the things you could do to avoid Mordenkainen's Disjunction / Mage's Disjunction:

  Have a Periap of Proof Against Detection and Location
  Use other defenses against magical detection
  Use decoys (especially high level ones or powerful monsters, inadvertently drawn into your mess)
  Antimagic Shell and Antimagic Zone.
  Divination (it might work, since the lich is busy and not expecting anyone to be so insane as to bother him:  you might locate him and effect a surprise attack.)
  Some of the clerical spells out of the old 2nd Edition Tome of Magic (one will turn the Mordenkainen's Disjunction right back at the casting wizard.  Another makes you immune to any spells cast in your vicinity:  you are not in the same plane of existence, even though you can step out into it at any time.)
  Wish and Limited Wish.
  Spell Turning.
  Winning Initiative (Yes, that Improved Initiative Feat goes a long ways here!!!)

  If all that fails, running sometimes works.  Better yet, getting down on your knees and begging for mercy is an option (archmages are proud and arrogant types, and tend to show 'mercy' to boost their own egos.)

  If you are just going to waltz up to an archmage, confront him at 20 paces (Western gunfight style), and have at it, expect to be royally roughed over.

  Finally, REMEMBER that most archmages have Clones or even Stasis Clones available (not to mention clerical friends with Resurrection), so after you kill the wizard ... he returns, finds out who killed him, and then you have a much bigger problem than Mage's Disjunction to deal with (such as, he intends to capture your soul and put it into a Flask of Fiery Burning, and leave it there for the next couple of millennia.  You DO have that Periap of Proof Against Detection and Location, right? ...)


----------



## NilesB (Nov 24, 2006)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> It's the same as the hatred for Rust Monsters - 3E has promoted too much dependance on gear and loot, IMHO...



As opposed to previous editions where your character sheet was basicly an equipment list and a hit point tally?

The wealth by level table increases the importance of levels, not gear.


----------



## Bad Paper (Nov 24, 2006)

I like _Mordy's Disjunction_ *because* it feels a little lopsided in power.  It invokes that same terror-in-the-pit-of-your-stomach that the similarly lopsided real-world nuclear bomb does.  I have always felt that it's fabulous that this game's nuke is a friggin *abjuration*!  How cool is that?

Disclosure: I have never used, nor seen used, this spell.  I can't really claim to know its practical effect on the game.  The campaign I run is rather lassez-faire (bare minimum of house rules, lots of as-written-but-broken stuff), so I hope my party is getting the hint when I keep reminding the wizard to back up his Boccob's blessed book.  They're 16th level now, so, heh heh, yyyeeaahhhh


----------



## kasin (Nov 24, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> So, here's a question. Let's say I house ruled the spell in my game to suppress magic items for (say) one round per level, normal will save negates. What's the downside?
> 
> The biggest, I think, is that every fight will start with the PCs (or the NPCs) leading with this spell, and the will saves that go with it, as well as the constant rejiggering of stats as items stop working.
> 
> That's just differently bad.




I do this IMC. Artifacts may be temporarily suppressed, at the cost of losing spellcasting powers for a period. Given most epic level PC parties IMC have an artifact, the risk of losing all your powers, even for a limited time, is not to be sneezed at.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 24, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> It is a long way from rolling a few dice ahead of time to predetermining the whole session for everyone.  Rolling dice ahead of time changes nothing, except saving some time.  (Unless you don't trust the DM and think he'll cheat.  And if that's the case you have bigger issues).  The other is total lack of player free will.
> 
> I think players that use a lot of buffs and lots of magical equipment need to be preapred for losing it assuming the game has ways to lose it.  If a player slows down the game for an hour becasue he was not prepared then I'd treat it the same way for a player that has his spell list not prepared.  I move ahead without him.  Having players prepared is not out of the question in my mind.  But again, different people have different play styles and that's cool.




Do you know how robotic that sounds?

This is a game. Games are meant to be fun.

If the DM is going to throw MD at the players, some if not most players enjoy rolling their own save dice. If that slows up the game for the DM, then the DM should not be stupid enough to throw MD at the players in the first place.


This is like a game where the DM once killed my PC because I was roleplaying in character and attacked a guard of a mercenary unit. It was not only totally in character, but practically forced due to the background of my PC and the scenario the DM threw at us. So, the DM stated that a bunch of mercenaries came out of the barracks, local shops and taverns, etc. and the PCs who ran away got away, the PC who stood with me got knocked unconcious, and my PC was killed. No dice rolls. No combat (and my PC had a few ways in which to magically flee if combat became too overwhelming). When asked why he did not play the combat out considering it involved a PC death, the DM stated that it was "not worth his time". So, I said the game was not worth my time and walked out the door.


This is similar to pre-rolling saves for the players. Such a game is not fun and not worth my time. If the DM is going to use MD, he should be prepared for the game slow up. A DM should never be rolling a saving throw for a player. It is not his perogative, at least not in the type of game I enjoy.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 24, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This is a game. Games are meant to be fun.




I think you are stuck on this.  Games are meant to be fun, but not everyone has fun with the game in the same way.  

The example you give is much different and of a bad DM.  People in this thread say the time to make the saves is a problem so rolling them ahead of time is a solution to that.  The dice are still rolled, heck the players them selves can roll the dice if that makes them happy.  

You don't like it, that's fine.  Some people do.  Is that wrong of them to enjoy it?


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 24, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I think you are stuck on this.  Games are meant to be fun, but not everyone has fun with the game in the same way.
> 
> The example you give is much different and of a bad DM.  People in this thread say the time to make the saves is a problem so rolling them ahead of time is a solution to that.  The dice are still rolled, heck the players them selves can roll the dice if that makes them happy.
> 
> You don't like it, that's fine.  Some people do.  Is that wrong of them to enjoy it?




It can be claimed that anything is fun. That does not make it true for most people. I suspect that there are very few people who want to roll saves for all of their PC's items, regardless of who rolls them.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 24, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Back in my day, here were some of the things you could do to avoid Mordenkainen's Disjunction / Mage's Disjunction:
> 
> Have a Periap of Proof Against Detection and Location
> Use other defenses against magical detection
> ...




This is totally silly.

How exactly is a Fighter supposed to do most of these?

By your own admission, Archmages are terrible to behold. If so, how the heck is a party supposed to even know that one is going to attack them? Most divination spells are pretty vague. Sure, the PCs might divine that doom is around the corner, but they would have to be reading the DM's notes to find out that the exact doom is MD from an Archmage. By the time they find out, they've already lost their items. Like I said, silly.  

Preparation is all nice and well, and is in fact a requirement of high level play, but that does not make this spell balanced in any way. It is extremely difficult for certain classes to avoid it once it is cast.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 24, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It can be claimed that anything is fun. That does not make it true for most people. I suspect that there are very few people who want to roll saves for all of their PC's items, regardless of who rolls them.




Well, if you can prove that most (over 50%) of all D&D gamers feel that way then go ahead and do so.  Otherwise, I think you have no more idea on that then I do and might want to admit that.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 24, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Well, if you can prove that most (over 50%) of all D&D gamers feel that way then go ahead and do so.  Otherwise, I think you have no more idea on that then I do and might want to admit that.




I do not need to prove it. Having gamed for almost 30 years, I know that getting screwed by the DM is not fun for most players.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 24, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I do not need to prove it. Having gamed for almost 30 years, I know that getting screwed by the DM is not fun for most players.




So, now this is getting screwed by the DM?  Before it just wasn't fun, but now you've changed it to the DM actively screwing the players.   Sounds like we are back to those trust issues.  

Hey, I can play this game, too.  Also having played for 30 years I think most players are smart enough to know that this is just part of the game and not the end of everything.  Of course a Bad DM will use this to screw the players.  I don't remove things from the game for fear of what a bad DM does.  I find it easier to get rid of the bad DM


----------



## icedrake (Nov 24, 2006)

Disjunction sucks just as much as save vs death affects.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 24, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Of course a Bad DM will use this to screw the players.  I don't remove things from the game for fear of what a bad DM does.  I find it easier to get rid of the bad DM




This is not a case of bad DM versus good DM. This is the case of an overpowered spell whose sole purpose in the game system is to screw the players. The best DM in the world could accidentally have a TPK due to this one stupid overpowered spell. Course, the best DM in the world would be smart enough to not use it in the first place.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 24, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This is not a case of bad DM versus good DM. This is the case of an overpowered spell whose sole purpose in the game system is to screw the players. The best DM in the world could accidentally have a TPK due to this one stupid overpowered spell. Course, the best DM in the world would be smart enough to not use it in the first place.




It's a 9th level spell, it shoulkd be really powerful.  A good DM will know the spell is coming and be able to make sur ethe players are still able to have fun.  So, skill of the DM does matter, it always matters.  DMing isn't easy, high level D&D is even harder to DM.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 24, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> It's a 9th level spell, it shoulkd be really powerful.  A good DM will know the spell is coming and be able to make sur ethe players are still able to have fun.  So, skill of the DM does matter, it always matters.  DMing isn't easy, high level D&D is even harder to DM.




"make sure the players are still able to have fun"?

Totally unlikely in any seriously rational and consistent game. Possible in a "anything can happen, no matter how bizarre wide open" type game.

It will be difficult if not impossible for any recovery from such a spell to not seem totally contrived to the players. Deux Es Machina for items. Since Fighters will tend to lose more items than Clerics, either the DM has to force the Fighters to get back up to par, or the players have to force this. The DM minimally has to allow the players to find enough treasure to come close to equating to the loss.

Good DMs do not spoon feed situations and this requires a spoon feed to recover from it (especially if the dice rolls are both fair and just happen to be bad rolls on average, a good DM does not control the dice). If not, then there is no recovery from it and players of some specific classes get screwed.

Either way, it is a lose lose situation and I seriously doubt most if any DMs (again, for a campaign that is serious and consistent, not one that is wacky) can handle this in a satisfactory manner.


Again, the concept that "anything can be fun" is lame since many situations are not fun. Item recovery fudging (or lack of recovery) is not fun. IMO. I'm sure that you will now respond that it is fun for other people. Yeah, whatever.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 24, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Again, the concept that "anything can be fun" is lame since many situations are not fun. Item recovery fudging (or lack of recovery) is not fun. IMO. I'm sure that you will now respond that it is fun for other people. Yeah, whatever.




No, I will repond that I think you can only see one type of way to play the game.  All your posts seem to be coming from one very rigid inflexiable viewpoint.  You seem to have no ability to understand that people might not play like you do.  And that people have fun doing so.  And to such a degree you actually have to call it names.  I find this sad.


----------



## Ghendar (Nov 24, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> It's not being wiped out.  *The spell is not going back in time and taking away all the fun we had for the past year*.  The spell is not destroying plots or sessions, it's just taking out some equipment.  *Equipment can be replaced*.  Go down to the local 7-11 magic store and buy more.  Take a side adventure into the dungeon of magical treasure that exists in all campaign worlds.
> 
> *I think this is more that there are players that cannot accept bad things happening to their character*.  And that's fine.




Well put. (bold emphasis mine)
Adventuring can be quite dangerous, you know.


----------



## Ghendar (Nov 24, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This is a game. Games are meant to be fun.





Death isn't fun either.
However, I've had several pcs die and I still had fun. One of the most entertaining games I ever played in ended with the death of my pc. No, it wasn't planned that way.

I think, imho, that you put a little too much emphasis on player fun. If you yank that tiger's tail, it's going to scratch you. If you annoy that high level arcane caster, he just might disjunction you. It's all part of the dangrous life that adventurers having chosen to live.

I'm with Crothian on this one.


----------



## el-remmen (Nov 24, 2006)

Hey all, just wanted to smear some spam into this thread and drop a link to a thread in general I started that it inspired: Magically Equipped vs. Unequipped: What is the Level Difference?

And for the record, I think losing all your stuff can still be fun.  I also think that it can lead to passing annoyance or despair on the part of the players/characters - However, anyone who thinks it ruins the game, or can can't get past the annoyance of the moment to get back into character and into the game eager to find out "how we gonna get out of this one?" is not someone I want to play D&D with. . .


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Nov 24, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> No, I will repond that I think you can only see one type of way to play the game.  All your posts seem to be coming from one very rigid inflexiable viewpoint.  You seem to have no ability to understand that people might not play like you do.  And that people have fun doing so.  And to such a degree you actually have to call it names.  I find this sad.




QFT

There are various different playing styles, and to agree that MD might not be such a terrible spell that brings only bad things to the game, one must first accept that not all players focus their characters on magic items and overall power. There're lots of games going around that take a different approach, and MD will be seen just as another really powerful 9th level spell (and I still believe it's perfectly fine in terms of power, when compared to other spells of the same level).

If the spell is really screwing your game, just come into an agreement with the DM to ban it from play. If you're the DM, just don't use it. I can accept that MD just screws games that are based around the idea that characters should have a minimum magical equipment at a certain level, but the whole idea of gaining levels by killing monsters have been screwing the storytelling approach since the very first days, and we still find ways to play around it, I'm sure the MD haters will easily play around one spell as well.

Cheers,


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 24, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> No, I will repond that I think you can only see one type of way to play the game.  All your posts seem to be coming from one very rigid inflexiable viewpoint.  You seem to have no ability to understand that people might not play like you do.  And that people have fun doing so.  And to such a degree you actually have to call it names.  I find this sad.




Crothian, I don't think this remark is called for, you are getting a bit personal. 

I can see that there are disagreements about this, but we want to keep it all peaceable.

Thanks


----------



## Endur (Nov 24, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I think this can (and often will) kill the fun even in a story focused game. Being story focused does not necessarily equate to being carefree about loss of expensive equipment.




The trick is to make sure to have a way to recover "story items" from the disjunction.  

For instance, Yon party had their vast loot wiped out, but one of the few items to survive, the aged axe that the dwarf inherited from his grandfather survived.  Not only that, but the disjunction revealed that the axe is actually an artifact, the hidden Axe of the Dwarven Lords is revealed at last.

Conan, Fafrad, and many other adventurers won and lost their fortunes many times.  Gaining and losing equipment over and over again.


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 24, 2006)

I just know that I had a character once with an ancient family heirloom intelligent sword that was his oldest friend and had been an adviser to his family for centuries.  If it had been Disjoined it would have been a tragic event that could have crushed his desire to go adventuring permanently.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Nov 24, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> I just know that I had a character once with an ancient family heirloom intelligent sword that was his oldest friend and had been an adviser to his family for centuries.  If it had been Disjoined it would have been a tragic event that could have crushed his desire to go adventuring permanently.




Unless the bard in your group discovered a legend about a mystical lake in a far land, so powerful that even the deeds of powerful spells could be undone there. 

See? We don't need a lot of creativity to transform a terrible loss into a reason to keep adventuring.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 25, 2006)

Endur said:
			
		

> The trick is to make sure to have a way to recover "story items" from the disjunction.
> 
> For instance, Yon party had their vast loot wiped out, but one of the few items to survive, the aged axe that the dwarf inherited from his grandfather survived. Not only that, but the disjunction revealed that the axe is actually an artifact, the hidden Axe of the Dwarven Lords is revealed at last.
> 
> Conan, Fafrad, and many other adventurers won and lost their fortunes many times. Gaining and losing equipment over and over again.




It's funny how some people equate fiction with gaming. Gaming rarely goes the way of fiction unless the DM goes out of his way to railroad the storyline or creates a Deus Ex Machina situation (like the Axe of the Dwarven Lords example you just gave):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina

In fiction, the author is in total control and can make sure that the situation gets resolve. In DND, this can also happen, but like the Deus Ex Machina examples in that link, it can often feel contrived to players.

For some players, contrivance is no big deal. The DM can pull the most illogical situations out of his butt and some players will not bat an eye. Other players are jarred out of their suspension of disbelief by such events and situations. For them, the game is suddenly not as much fun or even annoying.

And unlike fiction, DND encounter balance assumes a certain amount of equipment. If the DM wipes out 75% of the Fighter's equipment and only 10% of the Cleric's equipment, the player of the Cleric is not feeling the pinch as much as the player of the Fighter. In fiction, it matters not if Conan only has a loincloth. Conan is not a real person who is putting real time into a gaming session.


The difference is that fiction is totally created and under the control of the author whereas DND is a game created by all of the players at the table, not just the DM. If the DM has to go out of his way to contrive a situation such as the one you just described, I know I would typically be jarred out of my suspension of disbelief.


----------



## Victim (Nov 25, 2006)

I don't even think we're discussing the same things.  To summarize some of the issues in the thread:

1.  Disjunction's power seems to be out of proportion compared to other 9th level spells.  Or not.

2.  Item destruction is fundamentally unfair, particularly in how it affects different character types.  Or some people are big babies.

3.  Disjunction can have unfortunate effects on the story, either from the loss of a treasured item, or plausibility issues from treasure aquisition, etc.  Or item destruction can be a launching pad for further stories or whatever.

Obviously, replying to complaints on one aspect of the spell with comments regarding another issue is a rather futile endeavor.  Hence the way arguments are going around in circles.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 25, 2006)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Give a few examples please. I can see versitile, and said so earlier as it is definately better for other things, but more effective at what it does?



Sure: you can wish for someone's magic items to not work (have him be the centre of a reduced anti-magic shell) or wish all your opponents elsewhere (q.v. Crypt Thing) - you're only limited by your imagination.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 25, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Uh huh.
> 
> In fact, while the DM is at it, he might as well determine before the game even starts which items are destroyed and which are not.



Do you mean to say that when you GM you don't make any rolls in secret? I find it more convenient to have a pre-rolled sheet for all rolls rather than roll dynamically and perhaps alert the players to something (e.g. rolling a Spot check for a NPC). Use it, tick it off the list, use the next value for the next roll. And with regards to Disjunction, players aren't going to know if their characters' items and buffs have been Disjoined until they check, unless the SFX are obvious, like a glowing sword being extinguished.


----------



## Sithobi1 (Nov 25, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> Sure: you can wish for someone's magic items to not work (have him be the centre of a reduced anti-magic shell) or wish all your opponents elsewhere (q.v. Crypt Thing) - you're only limited by your imagination.



None of these are covered in the given possibilities for a Wish, so your DM may choose to screw you over with the wording, or have it not work.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 25, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> Do you mean to say that when you GM you don't make any rolls in secret? I find it more convenient to have a pre-rolled sheet for all rolls rather than roll dynamically and perhaps alert the players to something (e.g. rolling a Spot check for a NPC). Use it, tick it off the list, use the next value for the next roll.




Actually, I do not roll in advance.

I allow my players to roll the vast majority of their rolls and I never roll saving throws for them. I do roll secret rolls for PCs occassionally (and for NPCs if the roll should be secret), but I never do it for saving throws.

As for alerting the PCs to a secret NPC roll, that is easily handled by just rolling a die every 5 minutes or so, regardless of whether an NPC is trying to use a skill or not.


One problem with a pre-rolled sheet is that the DM could subconsciously (or even consciously) throw an extra roll in, just so that a specific roll rolls high or low. Not saying that all DMs who use this technique do that, but it probably does happen. That never happens with dynamic rolls.



			
				Quartz said:
			
		

> And with regards to Disjunction, players aren't going to know if their characters' items and buffs have been Disjoined until they check, unless the SFX are obvious, like a glowing sword being extinguished.




While this is true, the real issue here is that in order to continue combat, either the players have to know exactly which items got disjoined, or the DM does. If it is the players (who are intimately familiar with their characters and equipment), they can make the appropriate adjustments to AC, damage, to hit, etc.

If not, then the DM has to do this for every PC (and NPC) who was in the radius of the Disjunction. That means that the DM has to be aware of every property of every magic item that got disjoined. Plus if he is keeping it secret, he has to have all of this information available without giving hints to his players as to which items got toasted. So, he has to review every single item that got disjoined and know when to decrease damage, to hits, saves, etc.

That's more work and time in game time than just rolling the dice for each item and letting the players handle it.

Sorry, but your "fast" technique of pre-rolling in secret (and not letting the players know which items are destroyed) creates an even larger workload for the DM and is an even greater time waster than just having the players roll and know which items are destroyed. I do not call this convenient like you did. I call it a DM headache.

The only way that your technique of a pre-rolling is faster is if you tell the players which items are disjoined. That defeats the purpose of keeping the rolls secret in the first place and you might as well let the players roll anyway (since for some players, they might dislike a DM rolling saves for all of their items, I know I would dislike that).


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Nov 25, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This is totally silly.
> 
> How exactly is a Fighter supposed to do most of these?
> 
> ...




  Unfortunately, a high level fighter is out of his league against an archmage.  This imbalance was created with the D&D game back in 1974, and has remained so ever since despite every attempt to change it.  I personally do not see that it is possible to right the inequality, short of changing the game itself into something else (which they seem to be doing ...)
  That leaves only Second Best Options for the Fighter.

  - He can obtain magical items to aid in his fight against the archmage:  magic against magic.
  - He can obtain anti-magical items in an effort to shield himself from Mordenkainen's Disjunction, other Autokill spells, and other powerful spells.
  - He can work with a party that includes a high level wizard and/or a high level cleric, and fight to protect those PCs so that *they* can defeat the archmage (and resurrect him, if needed.)
  - He can multiclass (particularly now, in 3E), then go into PrCs that enable him to use magical spells or magical type abilities himself.
  - He can also use decoys.  He can goad monsters into attacking the wizard's lair, or pay NPCs into attacking it (NPCs who do not know what they are in for, of course.)  Or he could start rumors that attracted the unfavorable attention of the authorities on the archmage (they are afraid of such powerful wizards too, obviously.)
  - He can do other things.  Archmages are still only mortal, and make mistakes (especially since they are typically arrogant.)

  -

  Archmages should not be random encounters that one just happens to 'run into', in my opinion.  As you have said, that seems silly.

  Take Acererak.  He stays in his vault.  Everyone knows he's there.  A lot of people insist on trying to kill him.  A lot of people ... are now dead.
  Larloch's necropolis is a known location.  Nobody tries to go there.  The LAST time adventurers bothered Larloch, the city they came from was torched and half the population exterminated.
  If the party runs into Mordenkainen in a tavern, it is doubtful he is looking for a fight.  He'll probably leave if bothered without throwing a single spell at the party ... and the Greyhawk City Guard will then run the PCs out of town on a rail.
  Gromph the Archmage of Menzoberranzan, is probably in Menzoberranzan.  If he is outside it, it is for one heck of a good reason and he is probably looking to avoid a fight (and thus the notice of the Surface World.)  If the party goes to Menzoberranzan, they will encounter fun aplenty and to spare long before they ever encounter Gromph.
  If the party insists on storming Blackstaff Tower, they will run into Khelben and Laeral.  They should not expect anything less.  Fortunately, Laeral is kindly and merciful.  Unfortunately, Khelben is neither.
  Halaster almost never directly molests adventurers in Undermountain.  Adventurers never know he is there.  Sometimes, Halaster sets monsters on the adventurers, watches the results, and is highly amused (win or lose.)  Sometimes, Halaster just watches the adventurers.  Usually, Halaster doesn't even bother watching.
  Raistlin is busy in his Tower of High Sorcery.  To get to him, you must first pass through Shoikan Grove.  (This rule applies even to invited guests!)  If you get through that, he will actually notice your arrival, and hopefully you will have a good explanation for this intrusion?

  You just might run into Manshoon accidentally.  Of course, there are FIFTY Manshoons running around all at once (see The Manshoon Wars) so this situation is the exception (and everyone is terrified out of their wits as chaos and pandemonium reigns across the Realms.)
  In a case like this, you might want to keep a low profile until the uproar has died down ... 

  Archmage encounters are unique and epic in nature.  The party should invariably know they are dealing with an archmage (or archmagistress, to use the FR term for female archmages) since this IS a unique and epic situation.  Fortunately for the party, the reverse is not necessarily true as the party is not necessarily so famous or infamous.
  RANDOM archmage encounters should be freakishly rare.  And of those freakishly rare encounters, it should be a freak exception that the archmage attacks the party out of the blue.  And in those cases, there should be a way out for the party and/or ways for them to recover from their freak misfortune.

  (a bit tongue in cheek)

  I have a different conception of 9th level spells than yourself, taken from the olden days.
  I consider 9th level spells to be in the Realm of Autokill.  That is to say, if it's an Autokill spell (like the old Internal Fires spell, much less the old Time Stop) it's probably 9th level.
  9th level spells and balance are contradicting terms.  In my opinion, no game exists where both exist.  9th level spells are beasts as terrible as the tarrasque, as unstoppable as Raistlin, as unreasonable as the Simbul, and as gamebreaking as the Hand of Vecna.  They put the Arch into Archmage/Archmagistress.
  So, if your PC insists on fighting a monster or NPC with 9th level spells, you know exactly who is to blame when what is left of your PC can be scouped into a thimble.  

  Edena_of_Neith

  EDIT:  No archmage is going to wait in a dungeon room for the party to come walking around the corner.  No self respecting archmage would ever consent to be the DM's monster-in-room 35!


----------



## Quartz (Nov 25, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If not, then the DM has to do this for every PC (and NPC) who was in the radius of the Disjunction. That means that the DM has to be aware of every property of every magic item that got disjoined. Plus if he is keeping it secret, he has to have all of this information available without giving hints to his players as to which items got toasted. So, he has to review every single item that got disjoined and know when to decrease damage, to hits, saves, etc.



I fail to see how this is a problem. When I was a GM, I had copies of PCs' character sheets, assorted index cards, notes of spell durations etc. Nicely organised. Made item saving throws in 2nd ed very easy.


----------



## NilesB (Nov 25, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, a high level fighter is out of his league against an archmage.  This imbalance was created with the D&D game back in 1974, and has remained so ever since despite every attempt to change it.  I personally do not see that it is possible to right the inequality, short of changing the game itself into something else



Well, a good way to start would be eliminating disjunction.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 25, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I have a different conception of 9th level spells than yourself, taken from the olden days.
> I consider 9th level spells to be in the Realm of Autokill.  That is to say, if it's an Autokill spell (like the old Internal Fires spell, much less the old Time Stop) it's probably 9th level.
> 9th level spells and balance are contradicting terms.  In my opinion, no game exists where both exist.  9th level spells are beasts as terrible as the tarrasque, as unstoppable as Raistlin, as unreasonable as the Simbul, and as gamebreaking as the Hand of Vecna.  They put the Arch into Archmage/Archmagistress.
> So, if your PC insists on fighting a monster or NPC with 9th level spells, you know exactly who is to blame when what is left of your PC can be scouped into a thimble.




Actually, I agree with everything you said except this. In 3.5, 9th level spells are not as potent as they were in 1E/2E as a general rule. WotC toned down some of the 9th level spells for 3E and again for 3.5.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Nov 25, 2006)

NilesB said:
			
		

> Well, a good way to start would be eliminating disjunction.




  Yes, you can do that, and it will make for a more balanced game.
  But it will take something out of the game, too.  Nothing comes without a price.  Is it worth that price?  (Up to you, I guess, to decide that.)


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 25, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> I fail to see how this is a problem. When I was a GM, I had copies of PCs' character sheets, assorted index cards, notes of spell durations etc. Nicely organised. Made item saving throws in 2nd ed very easy.




It is just a lot more work for a DM.

If MD is being thrown around, the DM is already handling extremely high level NPCs.

Handling modifications of high level PC character sheets as well (it is not just items that are disjoined, but spells as well) would be an additional burden. The DM handling all of this has to *by definition* slow down a game.

Now, the DM could get away with not having to handle the spells if the PCs were aware that MD got cast (and know its effects). Otherwise, it would appear to be not much different than a Greater Dispel Magic in the eyes of the PCs and the DM would have to handle all of it. But, the DM would still have to handle the items if he is keeping secret which items are destroyed.

Additionally, it is possible that the PCs would cast more spells in future rounds after the MD and the DM would have to handle those as well.

It's one thing to add bonuses and penalties to NPC abilities as combat proceeds for a DM. It's a different thing for the DM to do that for the NPCs and the PCs as well. PCs tend to be a lot more complex than most NPCs (except for the BBEG and possibly a few of his most powerful henchmen).


Even if the DM were super organized and kept track of all of the PC spells cast before and after MD was cast and he rolled ahead of time to see which PC items got destroyed (he could roll this for all PCs and then just handle the PCs who were actually in the area of effect) and he had modified PC character sheets made up ahead of time, it would still slow down the game for him to keep track of PC abilities (and of course, some NPCs might get caught in the radius as well).

This spell is a total pain in the butt to run in combat.

Although I too always had copies of PC character sheets when DMing that I could bring out if necessary in a game, that's a lot of paper to be flipping through every round while running a combat.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 25, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Is it worth that price?  (Up to you, I guess, to decide that.)




I'd get this hangnail removed, but then I wouldn't have this hangnail anymore!


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 25, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Yes, you can do that, and it will make for a more balanced game.
> But it will take something out of the game, too.  Nothing comes without a price.  Is it worth that price?  (Up to you, I guess, to decide that.)




Why?

If the original designer had never thought of the spell, it would not be in the PHB and we would not be having this discussion.

Taking MD out of the game is white noise with respect to the game "losing something important".


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Nov 25, 2006)

In the case of Mage's Disjunction (Mordenkainen's Disjunction) I'd have to say that this particular spell (like the Wish spell) is a whole can of worms all in itself.
  Taking *this* spell out of the game changes things, if your world has archmages running around in it.

  Just my personal opinion.


----------



## Moonstone Spider (Nov 25, 2006)

Haven't seen this mentioned so far (Unless I missed it) but I hate the spell because it can ruin a character concept.  For instance a while back I built a "Hulking Herder" character, a battlefield-control fighter with a dozen bags of tricks and a few houseruled feats for using them (Like a quickdraw-analogue for drawing out animals).  If that character was disjunctioned and all his bags lost how long would it take to get them back using random treasure drops?  Or If for some reason I make a two-bladed sword fighter how hard will it be to find another +3/+3 sentient two bladed sword with shocking on one end and flaming on the other?  The GM might well replace the lost equipment with equal value but it probably just won't be the same.  Look at Roy Greenhilt and his extreme quests to get back his favorite sword, because it was a major part of his character concept.


----------



## el-remmen (Nov 25, 2006)

But that is just the down side of playing such a specialized character.


----------



## Moonstone Spider (Nov 25, 2006)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> But that is just the down side of playing such a specialized character.



So you think a fighter should not take improved critical, (greater) weapon focus, and (greater) weapon specialization?  And if he does he's just setting himself up for a fall?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 25, 2006)

Moonstone Spider said:
			
		

> So you think a fighter should not take improved critical, (greater) weapon focus, and (greater) weapon specialization?  And if he does he's just setting himself up for a fall?




Nope, a fighter the specializes in long swords is fine.  But a Fighter that specializes in only using the Long Sword of Dudes!!  and can't exist without that sword is.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 26, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Nope, a fighter the specializes in long swords is fine.  But a Fighter that specializes in only using the Long Sword of Dudes!!  and can't exist without that sword is.




However, the Fighter who specializes in Longswords and spent 8 levels looking for the Long Sword of Dudes, finds it, and then has it ripped away is probably going to be p***ed.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 26, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> However, the Fighter who specializes in Longswords and spent 8 levels looking for the Long Sword of Dudes, finds it, and then has it ripped away is probably going to be p***ed.




Maybe, but this is D&D.  The Sword of Dudes was going to get replaced by the Sword of Super Dudes anyway.  Adventurers are constantly upgrading their magical equipment in this game.  Even so most players don't spend 8 levels looking for soemthing, so the point is nice in theory but in practice rarely happens.


----------



## Seloryen (Nov 26, 2006)

Well if everyone is so afraid of disjunction just start replacing some of their magic items with minor artifacts that have the same effect because if you read the spell not much worse can happen then the divine intervention when you destroy an artifact.


----------



## el-remmen (Nov 26, 2006)

Moonstone Spider said:
			
		

> So you think a fighter should not take improved critical, (greater) weapon focus, and (greater) weapon specialization?  And if he does he's just setting himself up for a fall?




No, because I understand that everything has a downside and playing through the downside every now and again is not only part of the game, but is can often be  a whole lot of fun and very satisfying!


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 26, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Maybe, but this is D&D.  The Sword of Dudes was going to get replaced by the Sword of Super Dudes anyway.  Adventurers are constantly upgrading their magical equipment in this game.  Even so most players don't spend 8 levels looking for soemthing, so the point is nice in theory but in practice rarely happens.




It's not just looking for items.

It's also crafting items. A player could easily spend 8 levels preparing to craft a specific magic item (i.e. taking the feat, acquiring enough wealth to craft it, etc.).

So your counter point is nice in theory but in practice people do get attached to special items for their PCs.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 26, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It's not just looking for items.
> 
> It's also crafting items. A player could easily spend 8 levels preparing to craft a specific magic item (i.e. taking the feat, acquiring enough wealth to craft it, etc.).




Then as a higher level character when they can make it again and it will be a lot easier.  And I was talking about looking for an item, not crafting one.  



> So your counter point is nice in theory but in practice people do get attached to special items for their PCs.




You keep changing what I say.  I never said people don't get attached to thier items.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Nov 26, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> If the original designer had never thought of the spell, it would not be in the PHB and we would not be having this discussion.
> 
> Taking MD out of the game is white noise with respect to the game "losing something important".




Yes, the game is losing something important. What would I say to a player when he asked me how to undo a magic item? He'd say: "you know, this kind of thing keeps happening in fantasy stories, characters should have a way to destroy that evil sword..."

The fact that MD troubles the math of your games should not be used to ignore the fact that it still covers meaningful territory in fantasy, and D&D is a fantasy game after all.

Cheers,


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 26, 2006)

Giltonio_Santos said:
			
		

> Yes, the game is losing something important. What would I say to a player when he asked me how to undo a magic item?




I'd tell him Sunder or Empowered Maximized Scorching Ray (or even changed to Acid).



			
				Giltonio_Santos said:
			
		

> He'd say: "you know, this kind of thing keeps happening in fantasy stories, characters should have a way to destroy that evil sword..."




Keeps happening?

I cannot think of a single fantasy story where *multiple* items on *multiple* opponents got destroyed with a single spell. In fact, I cannot think of a single fantasy story where multiple items get destroyed on a single opponent with a single spell.

This player quote of yours does not sound realistic.



			
				Giltonio_Santos said:
			
		

> The fact that MD troubles the math of your games should not be used to ignore the fact that it still covers meaningful territory in fantasy, and D&D is a fantasy game after all.




Meaningful?

Quote a fantasy fictional novel where multiple items from multiple opponents get destroyed with a single spell. Preferably, a non-DND novel, but I'll settle for a DND one if that is all you have.

I think you are not being impartial here and vastly overemphasizing the importance of this concept in fantasy fiction.


In fact, changing the spell to a single item, possibly making it difficult for the item to save (maybe making it a % based on the power of the item as opposed to a saving throw typically based on the user) might balance out this spell.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 26, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> ...If MD is being thrown around, the DM is already handling extremely high level NPCs...





 

If "MD is being thrown around" there ought to be a fair number of retired archmages with no spellcasting abilities.

I should think that alone to be sufficient disincentive to cast this spell.  Thus keeping it as a reserve, desperate situation, emergency-only spell.  Heck, the potential personal results for the caster are worse than death, which in D&D amy be only temporary.

In games I have run I have used it exactly once when a very overconfident NPC used it on the PCs.  Its effects were not as bad as I thought they would be (many successful saving throws), but an artifact was "disjoined" and the caster lost all spellcasting abilities. 

I don't think after that than any PC would have even considered using MD himself.


----------



## Slaved (Nov 26, 2006)

QUOTE=Artoomis]If "MD is being thrown around" there ought to be a fair number of retired archmages with no spellcasting abilities.[/QUOTE]

Are artifacts really that common in your experience? Even if they are it is pretty likely that there is a less than 1% chance of losing spellcasting abilities. After that it is possible that the powerful being that is called could be happy that it is gone and either restore your spellcasting or send you on a quest to get it back.

People were talking about how easy it was simply to make a quest to get back equipment. That makes it sound like it should be easy enough to get a quest to restore the lost ability.

I personally have not seen artifacts to be that common. It would be interesting I suppose if every threat that came across a party had one though. At some point artifacts become common, especially if the party is already carrying around a few dozen. Does that sound like a typical campaign?


----------



## Quartz (Nov 26, 2006)

It's actually very easy to get around the 'lose all spellcasting' lmitation: have a clone ready. And in the interim, you can still use wands and other magic items.


----------



## Seeten (Nov 26, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> An issue with MD is that the DM can screw you badly without intending to.
> 
> 
> But, the main issue with MD is that the DM will almost definitely screw the fighter types and hardly harm the spell casting types. Again, he might do this unintentionally.
> ...




The worst part here is not that the fighter is put out by having this low will save, its that the fighter depends on his gear, and so, not only could the cleric do fine without his gear(although gear is nice for clerics, too) the fighter cannot do without his gear, and, is most likely to lose it.

You know, its stuff, and DM's like this, that cause me to keep rolling wizards, and clerics. Heh. 

I trust some of the DM's on this thread to understand wealth by level and CR's, but our DM's locally "Like low magic worlds" and then use the same MM creatures with save or dies, and DR and whatnot, and we have no magic items/whatever to overcome it. It gets ridiculous when you move into MD type spells, as the fighter loses everything, and will probably never recover. Ever.


----------



## Seeten (Nov 26, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> It's actually very easy to get around the 'lose all spellcasting' lmitation: have a clone ready. And in the interim, you can still use wands and other magic items.




I am pretty sure the "Caster loses all spellcasting" means the caster, and any clones he transfers his consciousness to. His consciousness is likely what holds the spellcasting abilities, not his fingers and toes.


----------



## Endur (Nov 26, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It's funny how some people equate fiction with gaming. Gaming rarely goes the way of fiction unless the DM goes out of his way to railroad the storyline or creates a Deus Ex Machina situation (like the Axe of the Dwarven Lords example you just gave):
> 
> The difference is that fiction is totally created and under the control of the author whereas DND is a game created by all of the players at the table, not just the DM. If the DM has to go out of his way to contrive a situation such as the one you just described, I know I would typically be jarred out of my suspension of disbelief.




Gaming is a cooperative fiction environment.  I agree that the DM should not contrive a situation so that it appears forced to the players.  On the other hand, there is no reason why the example I gave would jar suspension of disbelief.


----------



## Endur (Nov 26, 2006)

_1.  Disjunction's power seems to be out of proportion compared to other 9th level spells.  Or not._

Circle of Death is a 6th level clerical/wizard spell, and it kills lots of people.  Phantasmal Killer is a 4th level spell that slays the target.  Death is worse than item loss.  Conan never died, but he lost items many times.

_2.  Item destruction is fundamentally unfair, particularly in how it affects different character types.  Or some people are big babies._

I don't have any problem with item destruction from a game mechanics perspective (as a player or as a gm).  However, I think that story items should survive or be recoverable.  i.e. Captain America's shield.  If he loses his shield, there should be an opportunity to get another shield made or to repair the original shield.

_3.  Disjunction can have unfortunate effects on the story, either from the loss of a treasured item, or plausibility issues from treasure aquisition, etc.  Or item destruction can be a launching pad for further stories or whatever._

I have no problems whatsoever in taking a party's treasure from it.


----------



## Endur (Nov 26, 2006)

I once played an epic Barbarian that was almost totally immune to disjunction.  His wealth was invested in items crafted from rare materials, lands, and gold.  He was a King.  

Was he perhaps less useful when 9th level spells and gates were tossed about and titans fought hither and yon, well, yes he was.

But when the Anti-Magic Globes and Disjunctions came out, he was well prepared to take the lead.


----------



## Elemental (Nov 26, 2006)

Endur said:
			
		

> _1.  Disjunction's power seems to be out of proportion compared to other 9th level spells.  Or not._
> 
> Circle of Death is a 6th level clerical/wizard spell, and it kills lots of people.  Phantasmal Killer is a 4th level spell that slays the target.  Death is worse than item loss.  Conan never died, but he lost items many times.




Raise Dead and the Resurrection spells solve this for a lesser overall cost than having to replace several valuable items at the high levels. Weird, yes, but it's how D&D works. Death is not worse than item loss for a high level D&D character.

It's telling that so many of the defences for Disjunction rely either on building a character specifically for surviving the spell, or throwing in complications such as having every enemy carrying round an artifact.

My proposed fix for MDJ: It acts as a targeted dispel on each character and magic item in the area, with an unlimited cap. It can still wreak havoc on a party through dispelling half their items and spells, but isn't the "screw you, you LOSE" measure it is now. And if it's a targeted spell, there are actually some ways to defend against it (Spell Turning, Absorption).

Removing permanent item loss won't really affect Disjunction's ability to take magic items and spells out of the fight, but makes the spell much less horribly unfair against PC's.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 26, 2006)

Elemental said:
			
		

> Raise Dead and the Resurrection spells solve this for a lesser overall cost than having to replace several valuable items at the high levels. Weird, yes, but it's how D&D works. Death is not worse than item loss for a high level D&D character.




What stops high level characters from going on an adventure to get more treasure though?  Sure, they might be a little weaker but it is not like if the party is 18th level that all dungeos nare now 18th level dungeons.  They can easily go into one for 15th level characters or whatever and just get more treasure.  Getting treasure in D&D is not a hard thing.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 26, 2006)

Elemental said:
			
		

> Raise Dead and the Resurrection spells solve this for a lesser overall cost than having to replace several valuable items at the high levels. Weird, yes, but it's how D&D works. Death is not worse than item loss for a high level D&D character.



I disagree. The problem with death is that someone else has to recover you. This is not always possible. That is far worse than losing some of your items.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 26, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> I disagree. The problem with death is that someone else has to recover you. This is not always possible. That is far worse than losing some of your items.




_Shrink Item_ handles that rather nicely.


----------



## Nail (Nov 27, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> What stops high level characters from going on an adventure to get more treasure though?



The Plot, usually.  



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> Sure, they might be a little weaker but it is not like if the party is 18th level that all dungeos nare now 18th level dungeons.  They can easily go into one for 15th level characters or whatever and just get more treasure.



Dungeons have signs on them, proclaiming their level?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 27, 2006)

Nail said:
			
		

> The Plot, usually.




Unless the plot is forced on the characters, they should be able to do what they want.



> Dungeons have signs on them, proclaiming their level?




No, but a little investigation and research should turn up something that the players would find easy.


----------



## Seeten (Nov 27, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Unless the plot is forced on the characters, they should be able to do what they want.
> 
> 
> 
> No, but a little investigation and research should turn up something that the players would find easy.




Uh, if someone just disjoined me and destroyed my gear and whatever, I am fairly sure going to a level 14 place and ganking some lowbie for his loot would be low on my priority list.

You know, if we played it like it'd happen in reality, I'd have 19 treasure stashes all over, and by level 18 as a Fighter, I'd rule a kingdom. Pay the court magician to remagic alot of gear, and this time, bring a magic item with AMF to throw on the archmage. I am so sick of uppity Archmages anyway.

Ok, usually I play the archmage. And normally, I play an archmage with creation feats. Or Clerics. You know why?

Relying on other people to balance the world never works. heh.


----------



## Imagicka (Nov 27, 2006)

Greetings...



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I agree. A DM who uses this spell is just being a total sadistic ass, just like the guy who designed the spell in the first place.
> 
> Even Wish is not this powerful (Wish is more versatile, but not this powerful). At worse, Disjunction should be a very high level Epic spell. At best, it should not exist in the game system. The spell is merely designed to hack off players.
> 
> Just because a given spell concept can be thought of does not mean that it should exist in the game system.



Yes!  And while we're at it, let's remove anything from the game where it's a save-or-die effect.  Because that's just being cruel too.  Hey, and any offensive spell.  Because we know what lots of people are going to be hurt and upset that their character is going to lose hitpoints!  Oh, and don't forget the weapons.  Let's nerf all the weapons... literally!  Let's make all the weapons do subdual damage because they are covered in foam.


----------



## Elemental (Nov 27, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> What stops high level characters from going on an adventure to get more treasure though?  Sure, they might be a little weaker but it is not like if the party is 18th level that all dungeos nare now 18th level dungeons.  They can easily go into one for 15th level characters or whatever and just get more treasure.  Getting treasure in D&D is not a hard thing.




Quite a few things are problematic there:

What other level 9 spell requires multiple sessions to be devoted to reversing it's effects?

As said already, since when do dungeons have signs of them indicating their level?

It pretty much kills suspension of disbelief.

It might not be possible. The Evil Overlord is destroying the world in two days, we're on the clock!



			
				Quartz said:
			
		

> I disagree. The problem with death is that someone else has to recover you. This is not always possible. That is far worse than losing some of your items.




Eh, just leave some hair, a pint of blood or fingernail clippings in a safe place before doing anything dangerous.



			
				Imagicka said:
			
		

> Greetings...
> 
> Yes!  And while we're at it, let's remove anything from the game where it's a save-or-die effect.  Because that's just being cruel too.  Hey, and any offensive spell.  Because we know what lots of people are going to be hurt and upset that their character is going to lose hitpoints!  Oh, and don't forget the weapons.  Let's nerf all the weapons... literally!  Let's make all the weapons do subdual damage because they are covered in foam.




The problems with Disjunction are twofold:

There's no _defence_ against it, except counterspelling or somehow blocking the line of effect immediately when the casting begins, both of which are tough at best. And no, I don't think a level 17+ caster having to spend the whole fight constantly readying to counterspell a Disjunction makes the spell balanced.

Destroyed equipment cannot be recovered. At the levels where a Disjunction is liable to be cast, True Resurrection means death is merely a hit to the party finances. It would arguably be balanced if the items were temporarily dispelled, but permanent loss will affect players much more than NPC's and is just obnoxious.


----------



## Nadaka (Nov 27, 2006)

Meh. I just changed MDJ, it essentially acts as a chained greater dispell with no Caster Level cap or it can be used to target a single item with the standard disjoin effect. This way no one is completely screwed over with permenantly loosing all thier items.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Nov 27, 2006)

Look, easy answer folks:  Wish.
  Allow a Wish spell - a SINGLE Wish spell - to recover all the items lost to a Mage's Disjunction - a SINGLE Mage's Disjunction.  9th level spell used to counteract a 9th level spell.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 27, 2006)

Elemental said:
			
		

> Quite a few things are problematic there:




Small ones really 



> What other level 9 spell requires multiple sessions to be devoted to reversing it's effects?




Finally, a 9th level spell that seems powerful.  And people think it's bad?   And to answer your question: Wish.  As it seems DM use that to mess with players more then any other spell.  



> As said already, since when do dungeons have signs of them indicating their level?




How many times do first level characters accidently stumble into a 10th level dungeon?  Since that realrey if ever happens there must be some way people can tell.  I know the reason is because of the meta game, but there is no reason PCs can't research it and find what they are looking for.  



> It pretty much kills suspension of disbelief.




The spell?  The idea that there are going to be easy encounters in a game?  The players whining?  



> It might not be possible. The Evil Overlord is destroying the world in two days, we're on the clock!




Then you failed.  Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Nov 27, 2006)

Nadaka said:
			
		

> Meh. I just changed MDJ, it essentially acts as a chained greater dispell with no Caster Level cap or it can be used to target a single item with the standard disjoin effect. This way no one is completely screwed over with permenantly loosing all thier items.




Seems fair to me, though you should expect the chosen player with the chosen item to be really upset. If it happens to destroy something that really matters, even more upset...



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Look, easy answer folks: Wish.
> Allow a Wish spell - a SINGLE Wish spell - to recover all the items lost to a Mage's Disjunction - a SINGLE Mage's Disjunction. 9th level spell used to counteract a 9th level spell.




Seems fair as well. I like players brave enough to "use a wish to produce greater effects". I prefer not to try to screw them if they're not acting out of pure greed. You know, just emulating other spells is not so interesting...

Cheers,


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 27, 2006)

I feel obligated to once again point out that very, very few archmages would willingly use MD.  Too dangerous.  One never knows when an artifact may be within the area of effect. Certainly at the levels where MD is likely to be available, many, if not most, PCs will have at least a minor artifact of one type or another.

It's not unreasonable for there to be four minor artifacts (or more) in a very high-level party. I'd probably consider legendary weapons to be artifacts for the purposes of this spell, given the way they are treated as far as being well-nigh indestructible, etc.

Assuming a 15th-level caster (lowest possible, normally), then that's 4 15% chances, with a probably +15 or so Will Save (+9, +6 bonuses of one type or another). Will save at DC 25 to avoid losing all spellcasting abilities, so that's a 25% chance for each Save.

Okay, now let's see if I've got my math straight

1-(.85x.85x.85x.85) = about 52% chance of at least one artifact being disjoined.

Now .25 x .52 = *a 13% chance of actually losing all spellcasting abilities forever.* Wish, Miracle, Clone, etc. notwithstanding. Only a deity can reverse it because no "mortal magic" can.

I'm sure the math is wrong (probability not being a strength of mine), but I am also sure that the chance is still significant, WAY over 1%.

Finally, note that at higher levels the chance of disjoining artifacts grows but the chance of making the Will save also grows as the DC is static. Eventually, if one were to actually find a way to avoid the automatic failure of a "natural 1" on the Will save and have a Will Save of at least +19, MD would be safe to use. 

Clone will not avoid the effects of losing all spellcasting ability. I think a spellcaster would have to be more than a little desperate to ever use MD.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 27, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I think a spellcaster would have to be more than a little desperate to ever use MD.




I agree, but in a thread that talks about if it is fair I think we have to assume it's going to be used.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 27, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Look, easy answer folks:  Wish.
> Allow a Wish spell - a SINGLE Wish spell - to recover all the items lost to a Mage's Disjunction - a SINGLE Mage's Disjunction.  9th level spell used to counteract a 9th level spell.




The Fighter lost 8 items, the Cleric 1, the Rogue 6 and the Wizard 2.

Fighter: "Mr. Wizard, please cast a Wish spell so that we can get our stuff back."
Wizard: "For 5000 XP? Forget it. It'll cost me a lot less to just re-craft my stuff. XP is worth more than gold."


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 27, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Assuming a 15th-level caster (lowest possible, normally), then that's 4 15% chances, with a probably +15 or so Will Save (+9, +6 bonuses of one type or another). Will save at DC 25 to avoid losing all spellcasting abilities, so that's a 25% chance for each Save.
> 
> Okay, now let's see if I've got my math straight
> 
> ...




Most arcane casters take Prestige Classes and some even have natural Wisdom bonuses, so your math is a little suspect.

And, archmages are not real and hence do not have real motivations. They are NPCs in a game. Most DMs probably will not think this out to the level you have. Most DMs will probably just use MD when they feel it appropriate without sitting down to do the math and say "Hmmm, should my Evil Archmage really use this spell?" In fact, a given DM might purposely use the spell just for the off chance that the players can get a real rush when the Evil Archmage neuters himself.  

Just because you might not use MD in your campaign does not mean that it does not get used in other campaigns. Your argument here, although mathematically worthwhile, is irrelevant to whether the spell actually gets used in the game.


----------



## NilesB (Nov 27, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> It's not unreasonable for there to be four minor artifacts (or more) in a very high-level party.



Actually, I'd say that is a pretty unreasonable assumption. The median number of artifacts encountered per campaign (discounting those campaigns that do not go to a level where disjunction is likely to be encountered) is probably around *one*. Of those that are encountered the vast majority are one or more of: nonportable, consumable or undesireable.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 27, 2006)

NilesB said:
			
		

> Actually, I'd say that is a pretty unreasonable assumption. The median number of artifacts encountered per campaign (discounting those campaigns that do not go to a level where disjunction is likely to be encountered) is probably around *one*. Of those that are encountered the vast majority are one or more of: nonportable, consumable or undesireable.




Agreed.

Multiple Relics, maybe. Multiple Artifacts being carried around by the PCs? Not in any game I've ever been in or heard of.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Just because you might not use MD in your campaign does not mean that it does not get used in other campaigns. Your argument here, although mathematically worthwhile, is irrelevant to whether the spell actually gets used in the game.




You know, guys like Crothian and myself might say that _your_ conception of what counts as fun is equally as irrelevant to whether or not the spell is worthwhile or appropriate to have in the game. 
If it's not fun for your style of running things, you won't use it. If it's appropriate to another DM's style of running things, he will. D&D is more about offering tools to particular tables than requiring all tables to use all of those tools.


----------



## IcyCool (Nov 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The Fighter lost 8 items, the Cleric 1, the Rogue 6 and the Wizard 2.
> 
> Fighter: "Mr. Wizard, please cast a Wish spell so that we can get our stuff back."
> Wizard: "For 5000 XP? Forget it. It'll cost me a lot less to just re-craft my stuff. XP is worth more than gold."




Well, there's your problem right there.  The PC's don't like each other and apparently can't operate well in a team.  It's a _miracle_ they made it to that level anyway.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 27, 2006)

billd91 said:
			
		

> If it's not fun for your style of running things, you won't use it. If it's appropriate to another DM's style of running things, he will. D&D is more about offering tools to particular tables than requiring all tables to use all of those tools.




DND is about making money for WotC. As such, they will put into the system any idea that comes into their heads, regardless of how broken or game breaking it might be. They don't even bother to carefully edit their products anymore, let alone playtest them. I suspect that if MD were actually playtested, the designers might have limited it to a single item or put some other limitations on it. Just like they made massive changes to a good percentage of the spells from 3.0 to 3.5 when players commented on them.

But, it is not just an issue of fun. That appears to be what you are focusing on with my comments, but that is only one issue.

It is also an issue of balance and MD is not balanced for its level. In fact, it is counter productive to the entire CR / Wealth By Level concept which was put into the game to help DMs control wealth and acquisitions. If a DM has a problem with the PCs having too much wealth, this spell does not resolve it. It significantly hampers certain classes at the exclusion of other classes. That too is not balanced.


----------



## KuKu (Nov 27, 2006)

Four artifacts??!!??!?


----------



## IcyCool (Nov 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It is also an issue of balance and MD is not balanced for its level. In fact, it is counter productive to the entire CR / Wealth By Level concept which was put into the game to help DMs control wealth and acquisitions. If a DM has a problem with the PCs having too much wealth, this spell does not resolve it. It significantly hampers certain classes at the exclusion of other classes. That too is not balanced.




So let's say I have a BBEG use MD on an 18th level party, destroying a few magic items (and the party goes on to defeat him anyway, because I didn't design him to be defeated by specific gear).  I then have them go through a series of encounters (designed so that the players don't need specific gear to defeat them) wherein they earn enough gear and loot to bring them up to the wealth level of 19th level characters right at the time they level to 19th.  What have I done wrong?  Where have I eliminated the fun?  Or is this scenario ok because I've designed the encounters following MD to account for it?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> DND is about making money for WotC. As such, they will put into the system any idea that comes into their heads, regardless of how broken or game breaking it might be. They don't even bother to carefully edit their products anymore, let alone playtest them. I suspect that if MD were actually playtested, the designers might have limited it to a single item or put some other limitations on it. Just like they made massive changes to a good percentage of the spells from 3.0 to 3.5 when players commented on them.




This isn't a spell from a sourcebook though.  This is a core spell done when they did playtest.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 27, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Well, there's your problem right there.  The PC's don't like each other and apparently can't operate well in a team.  It's a _miracle_ they made it to that level anyway.




Are you telling me that all PC arcane casters in your gaming experience would give up 5000 XP for their teammates? Without renumeration? Every single time? At higher levels, that's 25% to 35% of the time that the arcane caster will be one level lower on average in future encounters.


----------



## IcyCool (Nov 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Are you telling me that all PC arcane casters in your gaming experience would give up 5000 XP for their teammates? Without renumeration? Every single time? At higher levels, that's 25% to 35% of the time that the arcane caster will be one level lower on average in future encounters.




Yes.  The players are friends, and the PCs are comrades in arms who have been adventuring together for quite a while (usually).  The meatshields have likely saved the bacon of every other party member multiple times over.  And, if the casters wind up at a lower level, they'll catch up reasonbly well by receiving more xp.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 27, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Yes.  The players are friends, and the PCs are comrades in arms who have been adventuring together for quite a while (usually).  The meatshields have likely saved the bacon of every other party member multiple times over.  And, if the casters wind up at a lower level, they'll catch up reasonbly well by receiving more xp.




That's how it is with our group as well.  The players are all friends and they treat D&D like a game and don't take it that seriously.  They don't really mind being a level or two lower.


----------



## IcyCool (Nov 27, 2006)

I will point out that if I were designing an adventure/campaign for a group that wasn't composed of a group of friends, I would not include things that are likely (IMO) to cause issues.  MD is definitely high on that list.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 27, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Yes.  The players are friends, and the PCs are comrades in arms who have been adventuring together for quite a while (usually).  The meatshields have likely saved the bacon of every other party member multiple times over.  And, if the casters wind up at a lower level, they'll catch up reasonbly well by receiving more xp.




So, your group metagames every time that the PCs all have the exact same interests just because it is a game? One for all and all for one every time?

There are no greedy PCs or PCs who grab as much loot as possible for their temple or other organizations? No PCs blackmailed by the NPCs where the other players know nothing about it? No PCs acquiring as much XP as possible? Never any major conflict between PCs (where the players are laughing, but the PCs are arguing)?

Sounds communistic. More like a love in than a living breathing game where PCs are unique individuals with their own personal goals (one of which could be adventuring with others in order to gain power or prestige). The group is always more important than the individual. Strange. 


The players in my groups are friends as well, but that does not mean that the PCs are always comrades to the death and beyond. Roleplaying occasional conflicts between PCs is part of the fun. After all, it's a game.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It significantly hampers certain classes at the exclusion of other classes. That too is not balanced.




This has hardly been a criterium for balancing individual pieces of the D&D puzzle. Undead significantly hamper certain classes (sneak-attack classes) over others. The silence spell significantly hampers spell-casters compared to fighters. Whether or not one single tool in the D&D game hampers one class more than another is largely irrelevant. It's the reason parties are best when they include some diversity. When one PC is at a particular disadvantage, someone else has a chance to shine. 
And as you can see from this debate, there's no clear consensus that the spell is unbalanced as a 9th level spell.
As far as messing with the level/wealth guidelines, they're only guidelines in the first place. And if you do use them, you find that PCs are replacing the wealth they likely lost due to a disjuntion pretty quickly at the levels in which they are likely to encounter a disjunction.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 27, 2006)

billd91 said:
			
		

> This has hardly been a criterium for balancing individual pieces of the D&D puzzle. Undead significantly hamper certain classes (sneak-attack classes) over others. The silence spell significantly hampers spell-casters compared to fighters. Whether or not one single tool in the D&D game hampers one class more than another is largely irrelevant. It's the reason parties are best when they include some diversity. When one PC is at a particular disadvantage, someone else has a chance to shine.




Apples and Oranges.

Sure, the entire game has pros and cons.

But, we are discussing a spell which strips some classes and doesn't do it for others and this has serious negative repercussions for many sessions to come, possibly even to the end of a campaign.

Hardly the same as situations where some PCs are more suited for than others. All PCs have situations in which they shine.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So, your group metagames every time that the PCs all have the exact same interests just because it is a game? One for all and all for one every time?
> 
> There are no greedy PCs or PCs who grab as much loot as possible for their temple or other organizations? No PCs blackmailed by the NPCs where the other players know nothing about it? No PCs acquiring as much XP as possible? Never any major conflict between PCs (where the players are laughing, but the PCs are arguing)?
> 
> ...




This is worse than the metagaming inherent in recognizing that the 5000 XP cost is more significant than the value of the lost items?

Individual goals is one thing, but if you're adventuring with someone who won't occasionally take one for the team, why are you adventuring with that PC in the first place? PCs who are excessively self-oriented don't last long in the adventuring parties I'm playing in. If our PCs are adventuring in dangerous places, we want to be able to trust the man at our backs and that requires a little give and take now and then. We seek out and spend more time adventuring with PCs who get along with each other.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Apples and Oranges.
> 
> Sure, the entire game has pros and cons.
> 
> ...




It's not so different. A situation like this _could_ have serious repercussions. Or it might not if the PCs work together to overcome the situation. Same with a character who is disintegrated or killed in such a way that their recovery is difficult to accomplish. I fail to see how this situation is inherently different from a whole host of other challenges that PCs encounter.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 27, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> This isn't a spell from a sourcebook though.  This is a core spell done when they did playtest.




That doesn't make MD balanced.

WotC only really playtested 3.0, not 3.5. They also revised hundreds of core spells between 3.0 and 3.5. Does that mean that their original playtesting was sufficient?

WotC thought these 3.0 spells needed adjustment with regard to the rest of the game system. They just happened to miss MD, possibly because it typically only occurs in higher level games (which btw polls seem to indicate that most games are played between levels 1 and 10 and hence most of WotC's feedback was probably for levels 1 through 10).


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 27, 2006)

billd91 said:
			
		

> It's not so different. A situation like this _could_ have serious repercussions. Or it might not if the PCs work together to overcome the situation. Same with a character who is disintegrated or killed in such a way that their recovery is difficult to accomplish. I fail to see how this situation is inherently different from a whole host of other challenges that PCs encounter.




It is similar, but not identical.

It's one thing to chip in 5000 GP to get a PC raised (where the PC getting raised gets to chip in as well).

It's another to sell off your own items in order to chip in 100,000 to 500,000 GP to get a PC's equipment back up to par.


The concept that a PC would have to chip in is unrealistic. It's like when the PCs expect the Cleric to always be casting Cure spells. The Cleric might do so, but it is his choice. It is not something that should be automatically expected. Ditto for a challenge like this.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 27, 2006)

KuKu said:
			
		

> Four artifacts??!!??!?




Sure, some artifacts are fairly minor.  I also think that, for the purposes of this spell, legendary weapons should be considered artifacts, too.

But, yes, by 15th level (+) it is not uncommon to have Minor Artifacts.  Things like a Sphere of Annihilation, Hammer of Thunderbolts, Philosopher's Stone, any of the Talismans, Book of Inifinite Spells, Deck of Many Things (if not used up) and/or equivalent campaign-specific items.


----------



## IcyCool (Nov 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So, your group metagames every time that the PCs all have the exact same interests just because it is a game? One for all and all for one every time?




Mutual survival is hardly an uncommon goal.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> There are no greedy PCs or PCs who grab as much loot as possible for their temple or other organizations? No PCs blackmailed by the NPCs where the other players know nothing about it? No PCs acquiring as much XP as possible? Never any major conflict between PCs (where the players are laughing, but the PCs are arguing)?




That depends on how the PCs are played out.  Intrigue and blackmail are one thing (as are in-character arguements), but the grabby rogue who steals from the party is another.  Nobody in our group likes to play with the latter.  We also don't have PC's that bully other PC's, or ones that respond with homicide at every little slight.

And, in case you think we are having bad-wrong-fun, the wizard would likely be compensated for his services in the above scenario, should it come to pass.  There isn't a "commune" amongst the PC's, just friendship.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> That doesn't make MD balanced.





Maybe not, but what does is:

1.  There is a save for each item.
2.  The fact that using it detroys the "spoils."  Generally, who want to destroy the treasure?
3.  The chance of the spellcaster losing his spellcasting powers is too high for this to be thrown around willy-nilly.
4.  The fact that it is 9th level.

I would expect that MD would only occur once (maybe) in a PCs career.   The one time I actually had an NPC use it on the PCs, the results were only a couple of items destroyed, including an artifact, and one high-level, powerful PC with no spellcasting abilities.

All-in-all, a pretty balanced result for a 9th level spell.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 27, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> And, in case you think we are having bad-wrong-fun, the wizard would likely be compensated for his services in the above scenario, should it come to pass.  There isn't a "commune" amongst the PC's, just friendship.




That's how it tends to work in our games as well (shy of unusual close knit situations like the Wizard is the Fighter's brother or some such). PCs tend to do a lot for each other, but they still draw the line at some things (like 100,000 GP or 5000 XP for free  ).


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> That's how it tends to work in our games as well (shy of unusual close knit situations like the Wizard is the Fighter's brother or some such). PCs tend to do a lot for each other, but they still draw the line at some things (like 100,000 GP or 5000 XP for free  ).




Yep - mutual survival is a powerful incentive for some reasonable level of cooperation, regardless of alignment and other motivations.


----------



## Nadaka (Nov 27, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Sure, some artifacts are fairly minor.  I also think that, for the purposes of this spell, legendary weapons should be considered artifacts, too.
> 
> But, yes, by 15th level (+) it is not uncommon to have Minor Artifacts.  Things like a Sphere of Annihilation, Hammer of Thunderbolts, Philosopher's Stone, any of the Talismans, Book of Inifinite Spells, Deck of Many Things (if not used up) and/or equivalent campaign-specific items.




That would depend on the DM. My first DM was one to hand out decks of many things at every oportunity... Even to first level characters. Practically everyone had a deck and anytime we got sick of one of his campains, all we had to do is decide to draw a bunch of cards from one the the half dozen DoMT we had.

However, the vast majority of DMs use artifacts very very sparingly. one or two here and there, with few staying with the party permenantly.

 I myself have never had the party keep an artifact for more than a few weeks in game time.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 27, 2006)

billd91 said:
			
		

> This is worse than the metagaming inherent in recognizing that the 5000 XP cost is more significant than the value of the lost items?




There is no metagaming in that. The character might not know it as XP, but he still has to have a concept of "I learn a lot slower for several months if I cast this spell".



			
				billd91 said:
			
		

> Individual goals is one thing, but if you're adventuring with someone who won't occasionally take one for the team, why are you adventuring with that PC in the first place? PCs who are excessively self-oriented don't last long in the adventuring parties I'm playing in. If our PCs are adventuring in dangerous places, we want to be able to trust the man at our backs and that requires a little give and take now and then. We seek out and spend more time adventuring with PCs who get along with each other.




There is a difference between taking one for the team and handing over major wealth.

20th level Fighter loses 400,000 GP in items. So, the other 3 members of the 4 member party decide to pony up 100,000 GP each so that the Fighter balances back up with the rest of the PCs.

With a ratio of $100 to 1 GP, that 10 million dollars. I do not care how close a friend and business partner is, in real life I am not taking $10 million of my $50 million estate and giving it to him just because he got pounded $40 million in the stock market. And neither would my other 2 business partners.

Now, why would you roleplay most PCs in such an illogical manner? Sure, an occassional unusual and extremely altruistic PC might be strongly motivated to do such a thing, but the vast majority of the PCs should look at the Fighter as if he has grown a third eye if he asked for this.


----------



## Bad Paper (Nov 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I do not care how close a friend and business partner is, in real life I am not taking $10 million of my $50 million estate and giving it to him just because he got pounded $40 million in the stock market. And neither would my other 2 business partners.



This analogy doesn't work.  You need to devise one where all four of you throw the entire combined $200 million weight of your "estates" to grow them (exponentially, by the DMG tables).  With that in mind, combining resources to make up for a $40 million shortfall (and not in some stock market anomaly but *as a cost of doing business*) does not seem farfetched.







			
				karinsdad said:
			
		

> Now, why would you roleplay most PCs in such an illogical manner?



...because most people play Good PCs?  Apparently not you?


----------



## billd91 (Nov 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> With a ratio of $100 to 1 GP, that 10 million dollars. I do not care how close a friend and business partner is, in real life I am not taking $10 million of my $50 million estate and giving it to him just because he got pounded $40 million in the stock market. And neither would my other 2 business partners.
> 
> Now, why would you roleplay most PCs in such an illogical manner? Sure, an occassional unusual and extremely altruistic PC might be strongly motivated to do such a thing, but the vast majority of the PCs should look at the Fighter as if he has grown a third eye if he asked for this.




But the adventuring life isn't the stock market. It directly affects your own ability to survive. If the PCs are looking at someone they've face death with on numerous occasions who is now down on his luck as far as equipment goes as if they have a 3rd eye, then something's probably wrong with those PCs.


----------



## Montague68 (Nov 28, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> It's not being wiped out.  The spell is not going back in time and taking away all the fun we had for the past year.  The spell is not destroying plots or sessions, it's just taking out some equipment.  Equipment can be replaced.  Go down to the local 7-11 magic store and buy more.  Take a side adventure into the dungeon of magical treasure that exists in all campaign worlds.
> 
> I think this is more that there are players that cannot accept bad things happening to their character.  And that's fine.




Been away on vacation, else I'd have replied sooner 

And the crux of your argument is that equipment _should be_ just equipment. In that case, sure. My +5 sword can be replaced no problem.

However, if you as DM introduce Lightbringer, the Legendary Holy Sword that the Demigod Holyguy used to destroy the foul Demon Lord Bigbadevilguy, create an intricate plot and massive adventure where at the end the victorious paladin holds aloft the mighty sword, don't you think even the most story oriented paladin might be a "teensy" bit annoyed when the next game a Lich rips off a Disjunction and bye-bye Holy Avenger?

But then again, if you can simply just trot down a side dungeon and Holy Avengers or Staves of Power/Magi or other such items fall from the sky like manna then no, the players aren't likely to be too annoyed. Myself, I put a lot of story background into major items and require major efforts to acquire them, and my players rightfully take pride in their major items. Having them destroyed willy-nilly with this spell and ascribing it to "thems the breaks when ya mess with archmages" is absurd in that context.

Perhaps it isn't that players are unable to take bad things happening, as it is that certain DM's instill stronger feelings in the items they give out by using background and weaving them into the campaign world instead of blithely reading over the DMG and say "alright you find a set of Full Plate +4 and a Rod of Resurrection, and 30,000 gp."


----------



## Slaved (Nov 28, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> All-in-all, a pretty balanced result for a 9th level spell.




I disagree fully with your conclusion. The reasons are posted earlier though.

Going over some peoples comments and looking through my own games I have both run and been in for quite a number of years now I can confidently say that there were about 3 artifacts total, major and minor, that would've had a chance of being with the party. Only one actually was for any length of time though and given that dm he would've ruled that the artifact was immune to disjunction anyway.

I agree with nadaka, it is just too dm dependent. I would expect in a fairly average game for there to not be any artifacts in the party. And I am still confused as to how mortal magic can destroy things so far beyond mortal magic.

Going through the numbers though we have the following.......

Disjunction caster level 17 = 17% chance to effect an artifact
A character at this level is rather likely to have a +5 resistance item, likely more but we will go with the basics. That gives about a +16 vs the disjunction spell vs DC 30 (a guess, it could be higher but then it could also be lower, this is a stat of 32, if a mage was really worried about artifacts he could remove his +6 int item before casting)
After that if the artifact is destroyed then the mage gets a saving through. His will save bonus is very likely to be much higher than +16 but we will go with that here.

0.17*0.65*0.4=0.04 which is about 4%

This is pretty much baseline. I would expect the mage to have at least a +20 on his will save and if artifacts are so incredibly common in the world that this is actually a worry then he could also have a couple of luck blades on hand.

That was also a minor artifact with only a 18th caster level. They do go higher and artifacts as listed as only having one means of destruction which should be very difficult, it is kindof sad that any 17th level mage has such an easy time of it.



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Look, easy answer folks:  Wish.
> Allow a Wish spell - a SINGLE Wish spell - to recover all the items lost to a Mage's Disjunction - a SINGLE Mage's Disjunction.  9th level spell used to counteract a 9th level spell.




I meant to comment on this earlier, how is this equal at all?

Yes, they are both 9th level, but one of them is 9th level + 5k exp while the other is simply 9th level.

Plus the one that lacks an exp cost has _even more effects_ than just that. So it is one spell + massive exp cost undoing part of the damage of a single spell without an exp cost.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 28, 2006)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> Perhaps it isn't that players are unable to take bad things happening, as it is that certain DM's instill stronger feelings in the items they give out by using background and weaving them into the campaign world instead of blithely reading over the DMG and say "alright you find a set of Full Plate +4 and a Rod of Resurrection, and 30,000 gp."




Playstyle does matter with the spell and there are specific instances DMs can set that this spell would ruin.  That doesn't mean that overall the spell is bad.  I doubt there is a spell that specific circumstances can not be made for to make that spell seem bad.  I feel the spell as is is good and has a place in the game.  It does not, however, have a place in everygame.


----------



## Stalker0 (Nov 28, 2006)

Here's my thought, what NPC wizard wouldn't use it?

Sure I'm going to destroy some loot. Big whoop, if I'm killing a party anywhere near to my CR I'm still raking in a whole lot more magic than I could get anywhere else, and lowering my risk factor by leaps and bounds. Even if I don't kill your most precious items your buffs are zeroed, making it a better fight in my favor.

Now there's the slight risk of a party having an artifact. But as most people have mentioned that's usually pretty small, and the overall chances of that happening are low. I think I'd rather take on that small risk then risk the possibility of dieing, then having this group bind my soul and stick me on a shelf so I never get ressurected.

There's just nothing more damageing an npc wizard can throw at a party, especially if they do in the first encoutner and then quicken teleport out. All of a sudden the party is dramatically weaker and my goons can clean up the mess.

And of course there's the old rule the world scheme. Okay, so let me get this straight. I, BBEG, want to take over the world. The main thing that stands in my way is this group of high level adventureres. Why the heck would I hold back if I have this nuclear bomb in my back pocket?

To me, if an npc wizard has disjunction, he's going to use disjunction. And I think forcing the party to lose so much of their gear with a single spell is just no fun.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Nov 28, 2006)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> However, if you as DM introduce Lightbringer, the Legendary Holy Sword that the Demigod Holyguy used to destroy the foul Demon Lord Bigbadevilguy... I put a lot of story background into major items and require major efforts to acquire them, and my players rightfully take pride in their major items. Having them destroyed willy-nilly with this spell and ascribing it to "thems the breaks when ya mess with archmages" is absurd in that context.




As lots of people pointed earlier, it's up to you to use it or not. I'd not use it on the holy avenger described above without a good reason (giving the paladin an opportunity to go into an epic quest to recover it would be a nice way to do it, though).

The problem here is that people who hate MD seem not to be able to accept the fact that some do like it how it's written, and it's easier to ignore something than rebuilding (especially if you already don't like the idea of items being destroyed in first place). I've been ignoring all spells of resurrection for 90% of my campaigns since I started DMing, and you won't see me ranting about the fact that they're in the PH, I understand that they serve various games very well. In my games though, being 500.000gp poorer should be a huge relief if death was the other probable fate.

D&D is not mathematics; it calculates things to make for a better gaming experience, but it's a storytelling/roleplaying game after all, and players should take that into account. I trust my DMs to make the game fun even if I'm playing a 20th level fighter with nothing but masterwork items, and I'd go as far as saying that I could still have fun playing the poor archmage who accidentally destroyed an artifact with disjunction... 

In the end, though, is all about playing style, and I'm sure the fact that Disjunction is at the core rules is not preventing you, Karinsdad, or any of the other guys on the thread from having fun with D&D, or you all would have already quit it.

Cheers,


----------



## Jhulae (Nov 28, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Yep - mutual survival is a powerful incentive for some reasonable level of cooperation, regardless of alignment and other motivations.




True, yes.  In the one campaign where I was playing a LE Wizard/Shadow Adept, she defintely made sure to work with the party for her survival.

However, there's no *way* she would have given up 5k exp for the rest of the group, unless a lot of *her* items needed to be restored, or if the party gave her some *major* compensation.  Otherwise, it would have been "So sorry, but I really can't justify that."


----------



## Jhulae (Nov 28, 2006)

Bad Paper said:
			
		

> This analogy doesn't work.  You need to devise one where all four of you throw the entire combined $200 million weight of your "estates" to grow them (exponentially, by the DMG tables).  With that in mind, combining resources to make up for a $40 million shortfall (and not in some stock market anomaly but *as a cost of doing business*) does not seem farfetched....because most people play Good PCs?  Apparently not you?




Even good PCs vary.

A group of LG PCs might not care about having a 'communal wealth pot' or whatever, where they make sure the one PC who lost a lot gets something from the rest.

But, Chaotic PCs, even good ones, care more about themselves than the group.


----------



## Endur (Nov 28, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Clone will not avoid the effects of losing all spellcasting ability. I think a spellcaster would have to be more than a little desperate to ever use MD.




Absolutely.  I think a spellcaster would only use this spell if he thinks he is going to die in a non-recoverable manner if he does not use it.


----------



## Endur (Nov 28, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> Multiple Relics, maybe. Multiple Artifacts being carried around by the PCs? Not in any game I've ever been in or heard of.




I have.

Fragarach.  Check.

Deck of Many Things.  Check.

Orb of Oblivion.  Check.

Orb of Silvery Death.  Check.

Book of Vile Darkness.  Check.

Talisman of Pure Good.  Check.

And all of those from a published adventure that is levels 4-12.

There are lots of artifacts out there.  Many of which have very minor powers or are plot devices that the PCs can not take advantage of (like The One Ring).


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 28, 2006)

Endur said:
			
		

> And all of those from a published adventure that is levels 4-12.



 It's 4-14 and Fragarach isn't actually in the module.  Otoh, you missed one or two.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 28, 2006)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Here's my thought, what NPC wizard wouldn't use it?
> 
> Sure I'm going to destroy some loot. Big whoop, if I'm killing a party anywhere near to my CR I'm still raking in a whole lot more magic than I could get anywhere else, and lowering my risk factor by leaps and bounds. Even if I don't kill your most precious items your buffs are zeroed, making it a better fight in my favor.




Buffs may be zeroed out (assuming the party even had time to set any up before the confrontation) but taking out the party's strongest items is a dicey gamble. You might get their powerful stuff and you might not. You're certainly going to anger them and they're going to come up with some form of counter measures for the next confrontation.

Using the disjunction spell is a powerful strategy, but not always a dominant one.


----------



## Stalker0 (Nov 28, 2006)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Buffs may be zeroed out (assuming the party even had time to set any up before the confrontation) but taking out the party's strongest items is a dicey gamble. You might get their powerful stuff and you might not. You're certainly going to anger them and they're going to come up with some form of counter measures for the next confrontation.
> 
> Using the disjunction spell is a powerful strategy, but not always a dominant one.




At high levels, what is a better one? Remember its not just buffs, even if you don't destroy the permanent items they all get turned off for a few rounds. Think of how much hp damage you do just by lowering the enemies con scores, how much DR you gain from lowering their damage, how much higher your saves are because the enemies spell DCs are much lower, and how much higher your spell DCS are becasue teh enemies saving throws how been greatly lowered. Heck it might be possible you prevent enemy casters from retaliating with 9th level spells if their unmagiced intelligence isn't high enough (unlikely but possible).


----------



## Endur (Nov 28, 2006)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> At high levels, what is a better strategy?




Anti-Magic is a far better strategy than Mord's Disjunction.

Some party members will have very high will saves and their buffs and magic items will survive mostly intact (Clerics, Paladins, etc.).  For other PCs, they'll still have some surviving items.

Anti-Magic, however, means none of their magic items and spells work.  Far more optimal because it is predictable.  You can count on anti-magic to get the job done.  

Furthermore, if you win, you can steal the PCs stuff.  With Mord's disjunction, you might have wiped out the treasure you wanted to steal.

As a GM, I've never bothered to use Mord's Disjunction.  I've used Anti-Magic many, many times.  

Also, Blasphemy from a caster with a high enough caster level is more powerful than Mords.  I used Blasphemy once to strip a party of all of their magic items.  (Paralyzed the whole party, looted the party, took all their stuff, and through them in a prison).


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 28, 2006)

Endur said:
			
		

> Also, Blasphemy from a caster with a high enough caster level is more powerful than Mords.  I used Blasphemy once to strip a party of all of their magic items.  (Paralyzed the whole party, looted the party, took all their stuff, and through them in a prison).




Yeah, this sounds reasonable. No save and most PCs do not have a decent enough Spell Resistance to bother a caster 5 or more levels higher.

DM: "I didn't feel like gaming tonight, so all of you are paralyzed, no save. Oh and even though it is an evil spell, I don't feel like playing the bad guy as evil, I'll just take your stuff and throw you in prison so that you don't lynch me."


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 28, 2006)

Endur said:
			
		

> Anti-Magic is a far better strategy than Mord's Disjunction.



 Many people (myself included) feel that AMF is broken (at its level), too.  We hattesss it!


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 28, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> DM: "I didn't feel like gaming tonight, so all of you are paralyzed, no save. Oh and even though it is an evil spell, I don't feel like playing the bad guy as evil, I'll just take your stuff and throw you in prison so that you don't lynch me."



 Well, quite honestly, there are things worse than death.  Especially in D&D.  But, it depends on how vile a campaign you want to run and how mature your players are.  Although, that's a conundrum because the less mature your players are, the less likely that you would want to kill off their PC's with an almost guaranteed TPK.

But, blasphemy is clearly broken in 3.5 and it really _really _should be house ruled (as with all the other three similar alignment spells).


----------



## Quartz (Nov 28, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> I am pretty sure the "Caster loses all spellcasting" means the caster, and any clones he transfers his consciousness to. His consciousness is likely what holds the spellcasting abilities, not his fingers and toes.




I disagree. As long as the Clone is created before the caster casts Disjunction, then it's a copy of him at that time, not when he loses all spellcasting ability.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 28, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> I disagree. As long as the Clone is created before the caster casts Disjunction, then it's a copy of him at that time, not when he loses all spellcasting ability.



 The spell explicitly states "In other respects, treat the clone as if it were the original character raised from the dead..."  If you lose all your spell casting abilities, are killed, then get a raise dead, do you have your spell casting abilities? No.


----------



## Bad Paper (Nov 28, 2006)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> A group of LG PCs might not care about having a 'communal wealth pot' or whatever, where they make sure the one PC who lost a lot gets something from the rest.



but they would care about continuing the fight for Goodness and whatnot, and it's hard to do that with a big fat unequipped liability on their team.







			
				Jhulae said:
			
		

> But, Chaotic PCs, even good ones, care more about themselves than the group.



um, I think it's time you reviewed the difference between chaotic and evil.

There is no "illogic" (*KarinsDad*'s word) in shoring up resources to pound the living crap out of your enemies.

Remind me to never go mountaineering with you guys.  I can't imagine you sharing if the bears get my food.  We'd just stand around yelling, "Unfair!  Unfair!"


----------



## Stalker0 (Nov 28, 2006)

Endur said:
			
		

> Anti-Magic is a far better strategy than Mord's Disjunction.
> 
> Some party members will have very high will saves and their buffs and magic items will survive mostly intact (Clerics, Paladins, etc.).  For other PCs, they'll still have some surviving items.
> 
> Anti-Magic, however, means none of their magic items and spells work.




So let me get this straight. As a wizard, you would rather cast a spell, that is centered on you, and run off into a group of adventurers with their beefy fighter to turn off their magic. So now they have no magic. And neither do you. So the fighter rips you in two, and you have no way to escape because all your magic is gone.

Vs.

Casting from a distance (at 17th level, you can hit people from 105 feet away) that doesn't hurt you in the least, and will take away all of their buffs and will take away ALL of their items (for a limited time), with the possibility of taking some of those items out permanently.  So now the opposing party has very little magic, and you have the full range of your powers to flex.

I can't see how antimagic field is a good strategy for a wizard unless he is facing another single wizard.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 28, 2006)

Bad Paper said:
			
		

> There is no "illogic" (*KarinsDad*'s word) in shoring up resources to pound the living crap out of your enemies.
> 
> Remind me to never go mountaineering with you guys.  I can't imagine you sharing if the bears get my food.  We'd just stand around yelling, "Unfair!  Unfair!"




Not too far out of context.  

We are discussing near replacement costs here, not shoring up resources.

It's one thing to give the 15th level Paladin the "lowly nobody in the party wants" +2 Longsword, even though he used to carry a +5 Holy Longsword. It's another for the party to chip in nearly 100,000 GP to replace his +5 Holy Longsword.

A CG PC could easily vote to do the first and still refuse to do the second and still be a good character and still be shoring up resources.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 28, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> ...A CG PC could easily vote to do the first and still refuse to do the second and still be a good character and still be shoring up resources.




Sure, and a chaotic and/or evil person could give up lots of cash to shore up the PC who lost expensive items in the interests of his own survival.


----------



## Endur (Nov 28, 2006)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I can't see how antimagic field is a good strategy for a wizard unless he is facing another single wizard.




Well, to tell the truth, I was thinking about having two beholders catch the party in an amf crossfire, dropping walls of stone and iron to prevent the party from leaving the amf area, and sending in some mountain giants to take care of the party.  

But there are various ways of utilizing the 6th level amf field for a comparable amount of fun.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 28, 2006)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I can't see how antimagic field is a good strategy for a wizard unless he is facing another single wizard.



In combination with other spells, and particularly traps, it can be a killer. For example, cast Antimagic Field in a room. Better, though, is to arrange for the room to be previously enchanted. When the PCs enter, cast the spell, leave, and seal the doors and conjure Death Fog from outside the AMF. Because it's a conjuration, the fog itself isn't affected by AMS. If you can't cast Death Fog, simply acquire some other suitable gaseous poison.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 28, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> In combination with other spells, and particularly traps, it can be a killer. For example, cast Antimagic Field in a room. Better, though, is to arrange for the room to be previously enchanted. When the PCs enter, cast the spell, leave, and seal the doors and conjure Death Fog from outside the AMF. Because it's a conjuration, the fog itself isn't affected by AMS. If you can't cast Death Fog, simply acquire some other suitable gaseous poison.




This is inaccurate.

Death Fog has a duration. Only Instantaneous Conjuration Creation spells are not affected by AMF, not ones with a duration.


----------



## Stalker0 (Nov 28, 2006)

And also keep in mind, that by the book AMF is centered on you. There is no casting it and leaving the room. Now a trap of it I could see, but now we are talking about the effectiveness of a trap vs the effectiveness of a spell. That's a different ball game.

If I am a big wizard, and a big party has just crashed my pad, gone through the basic traps, and is coming to get me, what would I use? Disjunction in a heartbeat.


----------



## Nail (Nov 28, 2006)

AMF is a cleric spell, really.  Clerics are tough enough to take a bit of unbuffed combat while their Ftr friends make hash out of the Githyanki Lich Queen.....err, I guess this tactic can be used on other opponents.

It was just so much fun to take down all of her tactics and defences 



Spoiler



including the auto-teleport of all of her items upon her death


 in one fell swoop.  Epic Level?  Epic Push-over.  

....I'm off on a tangent, aren't I?


----------



## Jhulae (Nov 29, 2006)

Bad Paper said:
			
		

> but they would care about continuing the fight for Goodness and whatnot, and it's hard to do that with a big fat unequipped liability on their team.
> 
> um, I think it's time you reviewed the difference between chaotic and evil.




Nope, I don't think so.

Lawful alignments (good through evil) are much more group oriented, hence the 'lawful', as most societies have laws that must be obeyed (even evil ones).  This includes a group of PCs who, if they're all lawful, may indeed have some kind of charter.  A LE PC might give up some equipment, but as for giving up XP?  The most powerful are usually the ones ruling in an LE society, and giving up XP for someone else *definitely* diminishes one's personal power moreso than losing objects (as more goods can always be acquired).

Chaotic alignments are much more individual oriented (hence, selfish).  CE may take this to absolute extremes, but even CG could care less about the law, especially if it infringes upon them.  Now, a CG character may feel bad and give his buddy fighter some of his loot, but, the're still more interested in themselves, especially if someone tells them they *have* to give stuff up (something *any* chaotic character should chafe at).


----------



## shilsen (Nov 29, 2006)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> Nope, I don't think so.
> 
> Lawful alignments (good through evil) are much more group oriented, hence the 'lawful', as most societies have laws that must be obeyed (even evil ones).  This includes a group of PCs who, if they're all lawful, may indeed have some kind of charter.  A LE PC might give up some equipment, but as for giving up XP?  The most powerful are usually the ones ruling in an LE society, and giving up XP for someone else *definitely* diminishes one's personal power moreso than losing objects (as more goods can always be acquired).
> 
> Chaotic alignments are much more individual oriented (hence, selfish).  CE may take this to absolute extremes, but even CG could care less about the law, especially if it infringes upon them.  Now, a CG character may feel bad and give his buddy fighter some of his loot, but, the're still more interested in themselves, especially if someone tells them they *have* to give stuff up (something *any* chaotic character should chafe at).



 That's a pretty simplistic reading. Sure, the above could be apply to some Lawful and Chaotic characters, but it hardly applies to all (or, I'd argue, most) of them. 

Being Lawful and Chaotic is just as much about consistency/change (and arguably more so) than about the group vs. the individual. A character could be intensely individualistic and be completely Lawful in that he has a strong personal code that he follows consistently (see the description of LN in the PHB). Another character could be very devoted to his friends and family and completely Chaotic, due to the mercurial way in which he shows his devotion.

And, of course, the above is just a couple of possibilities among many. Every alignment has a lot of variation within it.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 29, 2006)

Nail said:
			
		

> AMF is a cleric spell, really.  Clerics are tough enough to take a bit of unbuffed combat while their Ftr friends make hash out of the Githyanki Lich Queen.....err, I guess this tactic can be used on other opponents.
> 
> It was just so much fun to take down all of her tactics and defences
> 
> ...




It's doubly cool when a high level Cleric of Mystra can also cast spells in an AMF (guess which way I went for that new campaign Nail).


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 29, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> And, of course, the above is just a couple of possibilities among many. Every alignment has a lot of variation within it.




Which gets us right back to what started all of this: Not all PCs, even good PCs, would necessarily go out of their way to reimburse one PC who lost many items. They may backfill none, some, or all of the items, depending on the makeup of the individual PCs involved and regardless, they could still be good PCs. Even Lawful Good PCs might backfill none of the items if they had an agreement that all wealth is initially split up equally (and hence, backfilling would be an inequal splitting of wealth). Or, a LG PC might view such loss as their Deity's will. These generalizations of how Good PCs must act with regard to charity or comradeship are merely that: generalizations.


----------



## Elemental (Nov 29, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Finally, a 9th level spell that seems powerful.  And people think it's bad?   And to answer your question: Wish.  As it seems DM use that to mess with players more then any other spell.




Imprisonment, Gate and Miracle aren't powerful? Uh-huh. And powerful though they are, none of them have the permanent crippling ability of MDJ.

Bringing in Wish is a non sequitur. Wish will screw the players if the DM chooses to have it screw the players or if they go beyond the clearly stated safe limits. MDJ will screw the players if it's used as written. And remember which spell has the 5000 XP cost.



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> How many times do first level characters accidently stumble into a 10th level dungeon?  Since that realrey if ever happens there must be some way people can tell.  I know the reason is because of the meta game, but there is no reason PCs can't research it and find what they are looking for.
> 
> The spell?  The idea that there are going to be easy encounters in a game?  The players whining?




So why are these PC's facing great challenges when they could just be beating up level 10 parties and taking their stuff, all the time? Maybe if the world operates like an MMORPG, where there are zones designated for certain levels.



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> Then you failed.  Nothing wrong with that.




I literally cannot understand this mindset. Better to scrap a whole campaign that was going brilliantly up until the Disjunction, then houserule a broken spell?


In discussions about broken spells, there usually seem to be two schools of thought:

1: Houserule it.

2: Wildly exaggerate every possible disadvantage ("Gee, that NPC was carrying an artifact around too?") and make up some completely new ones to make the spell as impractical as possible without actually changing it.

Heck, I remember when people were arguing 3.0 Harm was balanced because of course, every enemy would be carrying around a Ring of Counterspells and have access to the spell themselves.


----------



## Particle_Man (Nov 29, 2006)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> Chaotic alignments are much more individual oriented (hence, selfish).  CE may take this to absolute extremes, but even CG could care less about the law, especially if it infringes upon them.  Now, a CG character may feel bad and give his buddy fighter some of his loot, but, the're still more interested in themselves, especially if someone tells them they *have* to give stuff up (something *any* chaotic character should chafe at).




Actually, Chaotic means individuality in *style*, not selfishness.  A chaotic good character might give someone else *more* than their "fair" share, based on what the chaotic good character thinks the other person needs.

In D&D, it is "evil", not "chaotic", that is explicitly defined as selfish.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 29, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Actually, Chaotic means individuality in *style*, not selfishness.  A chaotic good character might give someone else *more* than their "fair" share, based on what the chaotic good character thinks the other person needs.
> 
> In D&D, it is "evil", not "chaotic", that is explicitly defined as selfish.




Well, it does help to keep in mind:

Personal survival is generally important to ANY alignment - though for varous reasons.  In addition, there is an issue with PCs that does not exists with NPCs - the PLAYERS have to get along, too.  This generally means a minimum level of cooperation in a group, regardless of alignment or other personal PC motivations.  If a PC is nuetered by the loss of equipment, it would be suicidal, in most cases, to allow that state of ineffectiveness to remain for very long.

On another note:

MD is only going to trash SOME equipment, not ALL.  Traditionally, D&D has minor artifacts in the hands of most high-level PCs, so most high level wizards should be afraid to even use it except in very extreme cases, making it not a problem.  

If MD is being used frequently in a campaign this is DM problem, not a spell problem.  The spell is one that should be generally very rarely encountered, but it is a good one to have in the game.  It is GOOD for players to be afraid of a spell being used.

Using it once will NOT break a campaign.  Some equipment will be lost.  Oh, cry me a river.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 29, 2006)

Elemental said:
			
		

> Imprisonment, Gate and Miracle aren't powerful? Uh-huh. And powerful though they are, none of them have the permanent crippling ability of MDJ.




TEMPORARY crippling ability (except for the caster).  Losing equipment is temporary. It may not be easy to replace, it may not even be replacable with an identical item, but, in teh end, it is really just equipment that can be replaced.




			
				Elemental said:
			
		

> ...I literally cannot understand this mindset. Better to scrap a whole campaign that was going brilliantly up until the Disjunction, then houserule a broken spell?




Ever hear the expression: "Sometimes the dragon wins?"  The game is less fun if some great peril is not faced, and sometimes the PCs lose.  They may even lose and not save the world.  So be it.  Not everything should be pre-ordained to a PC victory.  TPKs happen.




			
				Elemental said:
			
		

> In discussions about broken spells, there usually seem to be two schools of thought:




This one is NOT broken

It's fine to not use it in your campaign, or to replace it with a toned-down version that gets used more often.  These are certainly valid DM choices.  In fact, with an atypical campaign that has very, very few artifacts, even minor ones, the risk factor for casting MD goes way down and the spell becomes a bit too strong due to lack of a presumed balancing factor.

The PHB is based upon a world where minor artifacts are fairly common for characters who can cast 9th-level spells (.  If your world is not like that, you should adjust MD accordingly.
[/QUOTE]


----------



## Crothian (Nov 29, 2006)

Elemental said:
			
		

> Imprisonment, Gate and Miracle aren't powerful? Uh-huh. And powerful though they are, none of them have the permanent crippling ability of MDJ.




Either does MDJ unless for some reason the players are not able to ever reequip themselves.  It gives them a temporary set back only.



> So why are these PC's facing great challenges when they could just be beating up level 10 parties and taking their stuff, all the time? Maybe if the world operates like an MMORPG, where there are zones designated for certain levels.




This is a situation that can only be handled in a campaign.  While there are not zones per say in a RPG there are places for parties of different levels.  It is a huge meta gameing thing that parties always seem to find an advneture that is abotu the right level for them.  I'm just sayting that in a game there is no reason an 18th level party has to always face 18 CR encounters.  And if they research and investigate they should be able to find an dungeon that is easy for them.  




> I literally cannot understand this mindset. Better to scrap a whole campaign that was going brilliantly up until the Disjunction, then houserule a broken spell?




So, there should be no chance that the PCs ever fail?  Failure is a pretty easy concept to understand and who says that has to be the end of the campaign.  BBEG wins, but the PCs are not dead.  They are in a tougher position but the campaign can go on.  




> In discussions about broken spells, there usually seem to be two schools of thought:
> 
> 1: Houserule it.
> 
> 2: Wildly exaggerate every possible disadvantage ("Gee, that NPC was carrying an artifact around too?") and make up some completely new ones to make the spell as impractical as possible without actually changing it.




I like how you insult people who disagree with you claiming there's is wildly exagerated.  If you want to go house rule the spell, that's another forum.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 29, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> This one is NOT broken



 That is clearly a matter of judgment, but let me ask you this to clarify your personal judgment of brokenness.  Are spell levels linear or exponential?  Specifically, compare the effects of dispel magic, greater dispel magic, and disjunction.  They are spaced 3 levels apart (very nice).  If you fit a power curve to the three spells based on your judgment, will it be linear? X^2? X^3? (estimate)

Is that the way (in general) all spells should be?


----------



## Quartz (Nov 29, 2006)

For all the talk of high level adventurers requiring a certain amount of magic items, I'd note that the Order of The Stick are fairly high level and have next to no magic items.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 29, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> That is clearly a matter of judgment, but let me ask you this to clarify your personal judgment of brokenness.  Are spell levels linear or exponential?  Specifically, compare the effects of dispel magic, greater dispel magic, and disjunction.  They are spaced 3 levels apart (very nice).  If you fit a power curve to the three spells based on your judgment, will it be linear? X^2? X^3? (estimate)
> 
> Is that the way (in general) all spells should be?




Irrelevant.

9th level spells are supposed to be the most powerful in the game, short of Epic spells.  Wish and Miracle (especially Miracle), for example, are almost completely open-ended as to what might be accomplished.

Spells with very specific numerical effects have rules to them as to what level they should be, but other than that it really is a more of a seat-of-the-pants analysis where, for example, 6th level spells are more powerful than 5th level spells but less than 7th level spells.

I find spells with no saving throws to be far more worrisome than MD.  MD has its own balancing factors built within it that seem okay by me, but can be a problem in campaigns that vary from what the PHB assumes is typical.

*Sheesh - it's a 9th level spell.  It is SUPPOSED to be powerful and scary.*

If a player/PC is worried about it, simply do everything you can to increase your Will saves, including becoming exempt from the automatic failure on a "natural one" for saving throws.  I know there is a way to do that from some supplemental material, but I don't remember what it is - feat, prestige class... something.  There you have it - virtual immunity from MD. 

In ordinary play, I find Fortitude "save or die" effects far scarier than MD!!


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 29, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> For all the talk of high level adventurers requiring a certain amount of magic items, I'd note that the Order of The Stick are fairly high level and have next to no magic items.





Yes, well, there is Vow of Poverty as well.  However, they are exceptions.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 29, 2006)

Now that I think about it, a FAR greater threat to your items comes from Sunder and Disarm.

Sunder can break them (fairly easily for many items) and Disarm can get them taken away, perhaps tp be destroyed.

Should Sunder and Disarm be eliminated because you might lose items to them?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 29, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Irrelevant.



 Not irrelevant at all and your refusal to respond is very telling.  Particularly, this statement of yours: 







			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Sheesh - it's a 9th level spell.  It is SUPPOSED to be powerful and scary.



 tells me that you don't think it's possible for a 9th-level spell to *be* broken.  How can we even have a reasonable discussion on the brokenness of a spell when you don't even agree that such is possible?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 29, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Now that I think about it, a FAR greater threat to your items comes from Sunder and Disarm.



 Not really.  If you are disarmed, the culprit is highly unlikely to destroy the item and therefore you can get it back.  Sunder is only (very) easy if you house rule it to be less than a standard action.  Even though, there are some things you can't sunder and in either case it's one item at a time, not ALL of them, and it doesn't include all of your active spells.

That's not an appropriate analogy at all.


----------



## Seeten (Nov 29, 2006)

Most DM's dont try to sunder their fighter's weapons.

My Barbarian made an Adamantine weapon after his first great axe was sundered. To sunder the Adamantine magic axe, you'd need an MDJ, pretty much, and you know, its still a vicious adamantine axe, even disjoined.

And I had to spend 3 character levels at thousands of gold under wealth by level guidelines, by the by, while this had occurred, and with weapon focus/weapon specialization, I used a dire flail in the meantime, not even masterwork, for 3 levels.

Should sunder be eliminated? I dunno. But I've taken it up a notch on the barbarian, with weapon chain and adamantine weapon. To sunder my weapon, you need to be the uber sundermonkey, and you have no feats left for actually hurting people.


----------



## Seeten (Nov 29, 2006)

Where are the high level fighter powers that are broken and scary? Oh yeah, there are none.

This is why Warblades arent broken. See the other thread for the details. Gimme level 9 maneuvers on par with MDJ, maybe "Sunder all spells in mind/all stored spellpower for the day" and lets have it hit the whole party and require fort saves. Sounds fair to me!


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 29, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Not irrelevant at all and your refusal to respond is very telling.  Particularly, this statement of yours:  tells me that you don't think it's possible for a 9th-level spell to *be* broken.  How can we even have a reasonable discussion on the brokenness of a spell when you don't even agree that such is possible?




I think you may have musunderstood me.

If MD, for example, had no down side to the caster and no save as well as SR not applying, I think we'd all agree that would be broken.

As is, there is no way to *definitively* measure its power level as it has no standarized numerical effect.

But, given that one's items can be sundered and taken with disarm,  I do not see a spell with "save-or-die" type of effect for each item to really be unbalancing, especially with the built-in disincentive to cast it of the very real chance of losing all spell casting abilities as well as destroying the treasure you would get from the battle.

In general, I would view MD as being used only when critical to the plot.  Among other things, you can never tell what it will do to the party - perhaps nothing at all if all saves are made.  Most likley, a few items will be destroyed.  That's generally not such a big deal, though its true effect on the party is basically random.

If I were to house-rule this at all, I would add bonuses to the Will save based upon an item's power.  Maybe something like caster level divided by four, rounding up (so that caster level 5 = +2 bonus on the save).  I do not think it is needed, but it's pretty reasonable.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 29, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Not really.  If you are disarmed, the culprit is highly unlikely to destroy the item and therefore you can get it back.  Sunder is only (very) easy if you house rule it to be less than a standard action.  Even though, there are some things you can't sunder and in either case it's one item at a time, not ALL of them, and it doesn't include all of your active spells.
> 
> That's not an appropriate analogy at all.




Sunder as an attack (rather than a standard action) is not a house rule.  YOU may view it as such, but that is not what WotC says in the FAQ.  It is, I admit ONE WAY to view the rules as written,. but please do not presuppose you have the only correct answer on that one.


Yes, it is one item at a time, true, but it can happen in ANY combat.  In fact, one might wonder why it is not done more often?  Wouldn't you think a monster is more likely to swat at the sword that is hurting it that the wielder?

Not that I am suggesting DMs starting subndering PCs weapon all the time, just that it is far more likley to happen than MD and thus a much greater risk to your equipment.

As for disarm, the possibility of your equipment being destroyed is very real if it is important.  For example, if the bad guy manages to disarm the Holy Avenger and get away with it, he would be wise to destroy it.

Again, a more likely scenario than MD.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 29, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Most DM's dont try to sunder their fighter's weapons.




Most DMs don't have NPCs use MD, either.  I still view sunder as the far more likley threat.



			
				Seeten said:
			
		

> My Barbarian made an Adamantine weapon after his first great axe was sundered. To sunder the Adamantine magic axe, you'd need an MDJ, pretty much, and you know, its still a vicious adamantine axe, even disjoined....




Nah... just lots and lots of damage.  I'll bet your barabrian could sunder it in a few rounds, if it even took that long.


----------



## Seeten (Nov 29, 2006)

At hardness 20? I dunno, with the amount of hp it has, and hardness 20, the axe will live far longer than the barbarian would. So if they sunder the axe till it dies, well, at least the party either wins in the meantime, or thats hundreds of hp that wasnt down to the 74hp barbarian.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 29, 2006)

So... why isn't Sunder used all the time?

Because:

1.  It destroys treasure.
2.  It has an inherent down side of NOT doing damage to you opponent who is beating on you. 

So... why isn't MD done all the item?

1.  It's a ninth level spell and there are almost always better options.
2.  It destroys treasure.
3.  It has a risk of losing all spellcasting abilities FOREVER.

So there you have it.  It's all good if a DM (or players) do not abuse it.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 29, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> At hardness 20? I dunno, with the amount of hp it has, and hardness 20, the axe will live far longer than the barbarian would. So if they sunder the axe till it dies, well, at least the party either wins in the meantime, or thats hundreds of hp that wasnt down to the 74hp barbarian.





At levels we are talking about, how many barbarian and/or fighters can't often do 50 points or more in one blow, never mind what can be done in a full attack?  A little two-handed power attack goodness and afew other things wham - no more whatever it used to be (weapon or whatever).


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 29, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> As is, there is no way to *definitively* measure its power level as it has no standarized numerical effect.



 I quite think that the number of targets, effects, items, bonuses to rolls, etc. all are numerical.  How are they not numerical?  It may not be entirely numerical, but IMO certainly enough to form a judgment.  I'm not looking for a mathematical thesis, just your judgment.  There is no wrong answer.  I'm not looking to trap you in some answer, but I want to see if you can form a judgment on the relative power levels of spells (using some metric that you yourself can devise) and use that as a basis to determine brokenness.  Whether you write it all down or just form an opinion is up to you.

For example, consider that MD (disjunction) strips all spell, I'll only compare the targeted versions.

DM: one target, maximum +10, does not affect items if targeted on a creature, does not affect artifacts, suppresses an item for 1d4 rounds

GDM: As DM, but maximum +20 and can remove curses

MD: all items and effects within a 40ft radius burst, magic items get a will save or be rendered normal, no dispel check necessary against all other effects, AMF may be brought down (and then everything within it disjoined), may destroy artifacts (albeit with a potential negative consequence), does not affect personal items/effects so you can drop this spell around yourself without consequence

The bonus on GDM is useful, to be sure, but it's even less than other similar caster level-bonus spells (e.g. mass cure light wounds, 5th level is +25).  The fact that it also removes curses is useful, however, and might warrant the 6th level.  Overall, I'd say GDM is weak for 6th-level, but maybe not too weak.  I'd judge the curve at this point to be linear at best.

MD, however, is worlds above GDM from what GDM is above DM.  The changes are nearly incalculable.  How many creature can fit within the area, if not just trying to fill it up, but normally?  I'd say most of the time it will be every possible opponent.  There's no chance of failure on all effects, either.  The fact that it's no longer even Target negates certain other chances to avoid it's fate.  It's extra abilities make it even stronger.  I judge it to be unbelievably powerful for a 9th level spell.  It should be epic, and I would say that even if you strike the parts about artifacts.

Otoh, it's a burst and therefore does not affect anything with total cover.  So, items stored in your backpack or wherever the DM deems has total cover will not be affected.   Note that since it's not a Reflex save, normal cover doesn't help.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 29, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> ...Otoh, it's a burst and therefore does not affect anything with total cover.  So, items stored in your backpack or wherever the DM deems has total cover will not be affected...




Cool.  I had not realized that.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 29, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Sunder is only (very) easy if you house rule it to be less than a standard action.  Even though, there are some things you can't sunder and in either case it's one item at a time, not ALL of them, and it doesn't include all of your active spells.
> 
> That's not an appropriate analogy at all.




Sunder is fairly close with regard to item destruction (in fact, we just had this discussion with our DM yesterday) and it does not take a standard action. It takes a melee attack.



> You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding.
> 
> ...
> 
> You don’t use an opposed attack roll to damage a carried or worn object. Instead, just make an attack roll against the object’s AC.




The AC of items is 10 + size + Dex. At high levels (remembering that opponents might have Haste or other ways to get additional attacks), a full round attack could easily be 5 items with no save in a single round.

Attack small items with the first few attacks and larger items with lesser iterative attacks.

A ring typically has AC 18+Dex, Hardness 10, and about 5-7 hit points. For a 20th level Barbarian, he could easily Sunder both of the Wizard's Rings, his Amulet, his Staff, and his Cloak in a single full round attack. Better yet, his Headband of Intellect (which is cool that you can easily sunder his headband without touching his head  ).

No saves. 95% chance of success per item.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 29, 2006)

Also with Sunder there is the great tactical feat from Complete Warrior that has the option to cleave after a successful sunder.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 29, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> ...MD, however, is worlds above GDM from what GDM is above DM.  The changes are nearly incalculable....




How does it compare to Wish or Miracle, though?  Or to other ninth level spells.  What is it's REAL power after allowing for it's potential down side of possibly losing all spellcasting abilities forever?

I personally cannot answer those questions definitively, but I can say it feels like a pretty good ninth level spell to me.  Appropriately powered at ninth level.


----------



## Jhulae (Nov 30, 2006)

But, even WISH isn't as powerful as MDJ.

I guess I could probably 'Wish' for all my enemy's magical items and current magical buffs to be forced to make a will save, but, even according to Wish, I can't 'duplicate' what MDJ does directly.  So, making a Wish that mimics MDJ is *definitely* getting into 'DM screwing the players via a Wish' territory.

If MDJ was single target, it'd still be extremely powerful (as it *completely* wipes out, not surpresses, magic items).  The way it's written, it should be Epic.


----------



## anon (Nov 30, 2006)

Disjunction is a bad spell.  It makes the game less fun.

Comments about 'real threats of danger' are, of course, correct so far as they go, but IMHO miss the point.  As a player I do want to be challenged.  Losing the use of my magic items does create a scary challenge, as characters encountering 9th level spells are very dependent on their items. But having the items changed to normal items, permanently, isn't challenging, it's just a waste of my time and a huge drain of fun.

The spell would be much much better, IMHO, and create virtually the same effect, if it simply disabled items for a certain period of time.  Anything from 1 minute to 1 month, as desired for effect.

The after-fight tale of "HOLY CRAP! I didn't know what I was going to do without my .... or my ....!!  I can't believe we made it out of there.  Hey mage, how much longer till our stuff works?" is great and fun, and still scary.  The same story isn't even told when the item changes are permanent because the players and characters are demoralized and upset.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 30, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> What is it's REAL power after allowing for it's potential down side of possibly losing all spellcasting abilities forever?



 It's only a potential down side IF you chance to hit an artifact AND it gets disjoined (small chance) AND you lose what should be an easy Will save.

And, as I noted above, any such artifacts have to be out in the open.  If Fragarach is in his sheathe (which I would personally call total cover), then he's okay.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 30, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> It's only a potential down side IF you chance to hit an artifact AND it gets disjoined (small chance) AND you lose what should be an easy Will save.
> 
> And, as I noted above, any such artifacts have to be out in the open.  If Fragarach is in his sheathe (which I would personally call total cover), then he's okay.




Fragarach does not have totoal cover in its sheathe.  The hilt is not covered.

As I previously pointed out, in a typical campaign, the odds of getting zapped when casting this spell are over 10%.

Also, if MD is used once or twice, you will lose FAR less equipment than if Sunder is used routinely.

If MD is used more often than that I have to wonder about the nature of the campaign and/or sanity of the caster.

I view MD as a somewhat less-than-optimal choice for the caster.  It MIGHT have devasting effects upon the targets, but it also MIGHT have far worse and far-reaching effects upon the caster and it MIGHT destroy a significant part of your treasure.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 30, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> As I previously pointed out, in a typical campaign, the odds of getting zapped when casting this spell are over 10%.




Yeah, but that was math for a non-typical campaign (it was also very incorrect, the caster level was 15 instead of 17, the save chance was too low and it assumed that the caster would not put up protection from his own spell).

It also assumed that PCs had 4 artifacts at <=15th level and it assumed that all of the PCs with artifacts got caught in the area effect of an MD.

This might happen is some small percentage of Monty Haul games, but I really seriously doubt it is anywhere near the norm. Even the artifact king adventure Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil which has 7 minor artifacts and 2 major artifacts in it ends up with many of them not being found (many are well hidden), or not being kept (4 are evil, 1 has 2 charges remaining), or destroyed/lost in the process.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 30, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Yeah, but that was math for a non-typical campaign (it was also very incorrect, the caster level was 15 instead of 17, the save chance was too low and it assumed that the caster would not put up protection from his own spell).
> 
> It also assumed that PCs had 4 artifacts at <=15th level and it assumed that all of the PCs with artifacts got caught in the area effect of an MD.
> 
> This might happen is some small percentage of Monty Haul games, but I really seriously doubt it is anywhere near the norm. Even the artifact king adventure Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil which has 7 minor artifacts and 2 major artifacts in it ends up with many of them not being found (many are well hidden), or not being kept (4 are evil, 1 has 2 charges remaining), or destroyed/lost in the process.




Regardless of errors and assumptions, what spell caster wants to take even a one percent chance of losing spell casting abilities FOREVER?

As for how many artifacts, well, take look at published adventure for parties of 17th(+) level.  How many do not have at least one or two (or more) minor (or major) artifacts in them?  

If minor artifacts are as rare as some would have me believe, then why are they even addressed in the DMG at all?

It matters not.  Any level of risk to losing ALL spell abilities FOREVER is probably too much for most sane spell casters to take.

What fate is worse then being left alive, a broken man or woman?  That a really, really sacry thought.

The point, of course, is that wizards of all sorts should be kind of afraid of the raw power contained in MD.  That's both for both casters and targets.

It's a prefectly reasonable spell at 9th level provided it is rarely used and mostly the big, scary thing that is out there that MIGHT be used.  It is GOOD to have a few spells like that around.  Not many, mind you.  If all the 9th level spells were like this that might be an issue.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 30, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> As I previously pointed out, in a typical campaign, the odds of getting zapped when casting this spell are over 10%.



 Let's drum up some numbers to see if you're correct (I don't recall you previously pointing this out, but long thread...hope you understand).

Assumption that the bad guy has MD and uses, we have to call this 100% otherwise we have no analysis.  Let's use CL 20 (in your favor), though it could be lower.

Chance of the party have an artifact: let's call it 99% at this level.

Chance of the artifact(s) being out in the open and the possessor being in the area of effect: 90% (I think this is fair).

Chance of it being disjoined: 20%.

Chance of failing the Will save: 5% (natural 1 for a CL 20 wizard/sorcerer).

The total probability is then .99 * .9 * .2 * .05 = .00891 = 0.9%.  I believe you can add this up for multiple items, so give 4 party members each one and you get 3.6%.

Even if you use 100% for the first two chances, you get only 1%.  It's never as close as 10%.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 30, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Regardless of errors and assumptions, what spell caster wants to take even a one percent chance of losing spell casting abilities FOREVER?



 That may be a valid point (and I'm not sure it is), but you can't exaggerate numbers and then claim those numbers don't matter when they don't hold up to scrutiny.

(INSERT exaggeration)

(debunk exaggeration)

Oh, that didn't matter anyway because ...

?


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 30, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> That may be a valid point (and I'm not sure it is), but you can't exaggerate numbers and then claim those numbers don't matter when they don't hold up to scrutiny.
> 
> (INSERT exaggeration)
> 
> ...




My point is the chance of a very, very bad thing (probably about the worst thing possible) it not so small as to be dismissed out of hand.

Depending upon your assumptions, it's probably between one percent and fifteen percent or so, and, worse yet, *is totally random and completely out of the control of the caster.*   I see little value in a debate about whether it is fice percent or seven percent, for example as even one percent is an awfully high risk when the factors involved are completely out of your control.

It is one thing to face the BBG with confidence in your abilities, quite another to risk everything (and I mean *everything*) on in-character pure randomness, as opposed to a roll of the dice for a chance to hit or something which in-character, is not random.


----------



## Endur (Nov 30, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Chance of it being disjoined: 20%.
> 
> Chance of failing the Will save: 5% (natural 1 for a CL 20 wizard/sorcerer).
> 
> The total probability is then .99 * .9 * .2 * .05 = .00891 = 0.9%.  I believe you can add this up for multiple items, so give 4 party members each one and you get 3.6%.




The total probability of losing spellcasting is actually less than 3.6%, as I understand MD.  

I read the numbers as being a 3.6% chance of having to take a DC25 will save.  Then your theoretical level 20 wizard/sorceror has to make his will save.  The wizard/sorceror probably has between +15 and +25 on his saving throw, so anywhere from a 50% chance of failure to 5%, then multiplied by 3.6% so anywhere from a 1.8% to .36% chance of losing spell casting capabilities.

I'm presuming the chance of failing the will save you recite is the artifact's chance of failing the will save, and you are giving the artifact a 2+ save against the wizard/sorcerors DCwhatever (probably 29 or so).  If the artifact does not have a 2+ save, then it might be more likely to fail its save and the chance of losing spell casting capabilities goes up.  

I would assume that artifacts are going to be present at any combat important enough to involve MD, but the odds of an artifact being destroyed and the wizard failing his save is small.


----------



## Particle_Man (Nov 30, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> What fate is worse then being left alive, a broken man or woman?  That a really, really sacry thought.




Ged got over it.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 30, 2006)

Endur said:
			
		

> The total probability of losing spellcasting is actually less than 3.6%, as I understand MD.
> 
> I read the numbers as being a 3.6% chance of having to take a DC25 will save.  Then your theoretical level 20 wizard/sorceror has to make his will save.  The wizard/sorceror probably has between +15 and +25 on his saving throw, so anywhere from a 50% chance of failure to 5%, then multiplied by 3.6% so anywhere from a 1.8% to .36% chance of losing spell casting capabilities...




I think you missed the fact that he assumed a 5% chance of missing the DC 25 save - which was already built into his calculation.

If you assume a 5 to 50 percent chance of missing the save, the result is 

.99 * .9 * .2 * .05 = .00891 = 0.9% to .99 * .9 * .2 * .5 = .0891 = 9% of each artifact in the area of effect.

For four artifacts, that's a 3.6% to 36%.  Actually I don't think that is correct either, but never mind.

The point is: the odds of losing spell abilities FOREVER is significantly greater than zero and is COMPLETELY out of the caster's hands.


----------



## KuKu (Nov 30, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I think you missed the fact that he assumed a 5% chance of missing the DC 25 save - which was already built into his calculation.
> 
> If you assume a 5 to 50 percent chance of missing the save, the result is
> 
> ...




Every person you run in to has a artifact? I think my wizard will stay home instead of adventuring. He is to smart to go out and play in god country.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 30, 2006)

KuKu said:
			
		

> Every person you run in to has a artifact? I think my wizard will stay home instead of adventuring. He is to smart to go out and play in god country.




At 20th level?  I would expect that every party would have at least one MINOR artificat, and one per PC would probably not be unusual.

Remember we are talking MINOR artifacts here.  I think I would include legendary weapons in that category as they seem to be treated that way.

Plus, of course, the following list (previously in this thread) of SIX artifacts is from ONE module level 4-12 shows how common MINOR artifacts really are, typically:

Fragarach, Deck of Many Things, Orb of Oblivion, Orb of Silvery Death, Book of Vile Darkness, Talisman of Pure Good.


So yes, I think that the default D&D world (PHB and DMG) does assume MINOR artifacts will be in PCs hands fairly often.

If that is not true in your world, then this spell may need an adjustment.


----------



## Nadaka (Nov 30, 2006)

Besides RttToEE, how many other published adventures have artifacts that the PC's might end up with? There are thousands that have no artifacts. And I would note that most of the artifacts in the one adventure you mention are intended as traps to doom the party to horrible fates.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 30, 2006)

Nadaka said:
			
		

> Besides RttToEE, how many other published adventures have artifacts that the PC's might end up with? There are thousands that have no artifacts. And I would note that most of the artifacts in the one adventure you mention are intended as traps to doom the party to horrible fates.




Many hundreds, if not thousands, of common modules have at least one minor artifact in them.  Keep in mind that D&D 3.5 has changed some former non-artifact items to minor artifact status, making them perhaps even more common than previous editions.

Note that :

"Minor artifacts are not necessarily unique items. Even so, they are magic items that no longer can be created, at least by common mortal means. "

They are not necessairly particularly rare, even, though I would only expect to find them owned by more powerful people (politically powerful and/or high-level adventurers), not ordinary citizens (commoners).


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 30, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> If you assume a 5 to 50 percent chance of missing the save, the result is
> 
> .99 * .9 * .2 * .05 = .00891 = 0.9% to .99 * .9 * .2 * .5 = .0891 = 9% of each artifact in the area of effect.
> 
> For four artifacts, that's a 3.6% to 36%.  Actually I don't think that is correct either, but never mind.




First, I wouldn't have an NPC Wizard do this if his chance to fail the Will save was not 5%. There are many boost spells that can get his Will save up.

Second, I would have him cast it as a 17th level caster instead of 20th since it has no spell resistance and hence, there is no reason (except possibly range) to cast it at the higher caster level.

Third, for the 0.9% case, that's 0.9% for one artifact, 1.79% for two (1 - .991^2), 2.68% for three (1 - .991^3), 3.552% for four (1 - .991^4), etc. Not quite the same as multiplying by the number of artifacts.


At that level, he might also have ways (an ability or a spell) to re-roll a failed save. That shoots this to .99 * .9 * .17 * .05 * .05 = .000379%. In this case, each artifact has one chance in 2641 of it adversely affecting him.

If his enemies have artifacts, why would the NPC Wizard not be able to handle that situation? Why should the 20th level NPC Wizard with Int 30 play this stupidly?


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 30, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> First, I wouldn't have an NPC Wizard do this if his chance to fail the Will save was not 5%. There are many boost spells that can get his Will save up.
> 
> Second, I would have him cast it as a 17th level caster instead of 20th since it has no spell resistance and hence, there is no reason (except possibly range) to cast it at the higher caster level.
> 
> ...




Exactly.  The smart move is to either not do this at all or to devote significant personal assets to making this be as low a risk as possible - taking assets away from other, likely better, options.

Why would a wizard do this?

If it were me, as the wizard, I'd research something like "Spell Disjunction" that would only affect spells.  Possibly also have it suppress items for 1d4 rounds or something.

I'd have this as a better option.  In some ways it is better, in some not.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 30, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Plus, of course, the following list (previously in this thread) of SIX artifacts is from ONE module level 4-12 shows how common MINOR artifacts really are, typically:
> 
> Fragarach, Deck of Many Things, Orb of Oblivion, Orb of Silvery Death, Book of Vile Darkness, Talisman of Pure Good.




Fragarach was not in it and the list should have included the Orb Gems and the Demon statue (there were actually 9 artifacts in that stupid module).

But, this is stupid. That was a ridiculous module with respect to artifacts.

The bad guys did not even use them, they left most of them lying around in trapped treasure troves or hidden. How boring to just find artifacts in treasure troves or in a secret compartment as opposing to taking long quests to explicitly find one and then battling the BBEG in order to pry it from his cold dead hand.

PC 1: "What's you got there Fred?"
PC 2: "Ah, just another Talisman of Pure Good hidden in a bowl of evil liquid. Here, throw it in your Haversack with the others."

Yawn. Boring. That module sucked in this regard.  


Artifacts should be the basis of legendary quests, not just common everyday treasure in a dungeon crawl. Look at the 2E Rod of Seven Parts adventure. One artifact, an entire major adventure for high level PCs to acquire it.

No wonder you think this would happen in games right and left. RttToEE screwed up your expectations.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 30, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Exactly.  The smart move is to either not do this at all or to devote significant personal assets to making this be as low a risk as possible - taking assets away from other, likely better, options.
> 
> Why would a wizard do this?




He might do it if he were about to get killed anyway or the PCs have a reputation of tracking down the BBEG and either killing him or bringing him to justice.

There can always be motivations. He could be insane. He could be forced to do so by his even more Evil master, etc.


He could even do it because the DM never considered the possibility that he might fail the roll (i.e. this is a game, DMs do not always might the best tactical decisions for NPCs, but the spell still might be cast in games).


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 30, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> ...Artifacts should be the basis of legendary quests, not just common everyday treasure in a dungeon crawl. Look at the 2E Rod of Seven Parts adventure. One artifact, an entire major adventure for high level PCs to acquire it....





Yep that was great.  But I maintain that MINOR artifacts are not all that rare at all - not even necessariuly unique. 

MAJOR artifacts are another matter.   They seem to be what most folks think of as "artifacts."


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 30, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> First, I wouldn't have an NPC Wizard do this if his chance to fail the Will save was not 5%. There are many boost spells that can get his Will save up.



 Not to mention just items.  A 15th level wizard/5th level archmage has a base of +13.  Give him a base wisdom of 12 with a +6 bonus item and +4 inherent bonus (+6 total) and a +5 COP and he already makes a DC 25 on anything but a 1.  This is easily higher with other items, spells, higher stat, feats, etc.  If you're basing your entire career on something like this, it's only logical to assume maximum protection.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Second, I would have him cast it as a 17th level caster instead of 20th since it has no spell resistance and hence, there is no reason (except possibly range) to cast it at the higher caster level.



 Good point.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 30, 2006)

Does Epic equal Minor Artifact?


----------



## Elemental (Nov 30, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> So, there should be no chance that the PCs ever fail?  Failure is a pretty easy concept to understand and who says that has to be the end of the campaign.  BBEG wins, but the PCs are not dead.  They are in a tougher position but the campaign can go on.




Unless the world ended, which tends to occur in quite a few high level plots. In any case, I don't hold that the campaign should require a big detour to reequip because of one spell.

And once more: _no defence_ short of doing what an earlier poster suggested and setting up your character several levels in advance to protect against a single spell. So after you've spent time regaining your gear, you encounter the bad guy again, who yawns and casts another _Disjunction_, triggering another lewt run.

Just like fantasy heroes of legend.   



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> I like how you insult people who disagree with you claiming there's is wildly exagerated.  If you want to go house rule the spell, that's another forum.




The "wildly" part was hyperbolic, I admit. I'll assume you were honestly offended, instead of dismissing an argument because of "rudeness".

As for the house rules comment--let's be honest, if you have every NPC carrying an artifact specifically to make Disjunction inadvisable or the like, that's just as much a house rule as changing the text of the spell.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 30, 2006)

Elemental said:
			
		

> And once more: _no defence_ short of doing what an earlier poster suggested and setting up your character several levels in advance to protect against a single spell. So after you've spent time regaining your gear, you encounter the bad guy again, who yawns and casts another _Disjunction_, triggering another lewt run.




The spell does not automatically destroy all items.  The defense is a good will save, something that is very important to people in high level games or their character gets held or charmed all the time.  And if you know the bad guy is going to do this, one prepares for it.  There are many options open to a high level group if they know the tactics of their enemy.  



> As for the house rules comment--let's be honest, if you have every NPC carrying an artifact specifically to make Disjunction inadvisable or the like, that's just as much a house rule as changing the text of the spell.




Not really, there are no rules that says who can and can not carry around artifacts.  It is a campaign thing, not a rules thing.  And I'm not sure whty the artifact on ever NPC is direct to me, I never made that point.


----------



## Elemental (Nov 30, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Ever hear the expression: "Sometimes the dragon wins?"  The game is less fun if some great peril is not faced, and sometimes the PCs lose.  They may even lose and not save the world.  So be it.  Not everything should be pre-ordained to a PC victory.  TPKs happen.




I agree completely.

But if a creature was released with an "I Win" ability (instantly kill all PC's, unlimited range, no LoS needed, no save, no SR), then I'd houserule it. Throwing that at the PC's wouldn't be a 'challenge', it'd just be mean.

That's an exaggeration, but MDJ is pretty much in the same category unless the whole campaign is designed around it.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> This one is NOT broken
> 
> It's fine to not use it in your campaign, or to replace it with a toned-down version that gets used more often.  These are certainly valid DM choices.  In fact, with an atypical campaign that has very, very few artifacts, even minor ones, the risk factor for casting MD goes way down and the spell becomes a bit too strong due to lack of a presumed balancing factor.
> 
> The PHB is based upon a world where minor artifacts are fairly common for characters who can cast 9th-level spells (.  If your world is not like that, you should adjust MD accordingly.




As explained above, the Will save for an artifact is not hard to make, and if you have a reroll-granting ability, it sinks further. Also, there are too many ways around it:

1: The caster will be exalted in the eyes of his god if he defeats these heroes and has been assured (maybe falsely, but he believes it) that he will have his power restored if it happens to go awry.

2: The wizard is actually a Dominated pawn of or fanatically loyal to the main bad guy. He would give his life for him, and the loss of his powers is a price he will pay to protect his master.

3: The caster is an egomaniac or is a brave / foolhardy enough character to take the tiny risk.

4: He finds out about artifacts the PC's have through divination spells and attempts to remove them beforehand.

5: The caster hates the PC's so much, they're willing to lose anything to destroy them.

Maybe they're not likely, but they're possible. Fufill any one of them and the RP restriction no longer applies and as you described, MDJ shoots back up to overpowered.


----------



## Elemental (Nov 30, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> And if you know the bad guy is going to do this, one prepares for it.  There are many options open to a high level group if they know the tactics of their enemy.




Prepare how? The one that approaches feasible is having someone constantly readying a ranged attack to disrupt casting (assuming they can see the mage and get through his defences) or break line of effect, but pretty much nothing else will stop Disjunction, since it's a no-SR area effect.

(edit) In the end, that's pretty much my biggest beef with the spell--there's no counter or protection, short of epic magic. Virtually every other spell can be guarded against.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 30, 2006)

Elemental said:
			
		

> ...Maybe they're not likely, but they're possible. Fufill any one of them and the RP restriction no longer applies and as you described, MDJ shoots back up to overpowered.





First, PCs must fail Will saves to lose equipment, so not all that much gets destroyed anyway (this is from DM experience - I was kind of glad that not too much got destroyed).

Second, if an NPC is fanatic to the point they are willing to so ANYTHING - MD is low on the list.   There are FAR better ways to eliminate the PCs.  Wild and self-sacrificing use of Wish or Miracle comes to mind right away.

Lots of things are "broken" if the NPC is essentially suicidal.  There are many great ways to kill (or worse) if you do not care about saving yourself.

Really, I view MD as generally a sub-optimal choice for a ninth level spell.  It very scary, and that's a good thing, but, in practice, there are almost always better choices of spells to use.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 30, 2006)

Elemental said:
			
		

> Prepare how? The one that approaches feasible is having someone constantly readying a ranged attack to disrupt casting (assuming they can see the mage and get through his defences) or break line of effect, but pretty much nothing else will stop Disjunction, since it's a no-SR area effect.




Scry teleport in and get the jump on him
Invisible non dection scout/rogue that find him and takes him out first
Get good will saves
grapple, disrupt his casting
Hit him with the spell first
Don't get in that close of a range (only 75 ft for a 20th level caster)
Don't be grouped together
Contingencty teleports so if he casts it you all teleport out of range
Counterspells

And this is just off the top of my head.  Many depend on circumstance, but with the creative things I've heard and seen high level groups do I just don't believe that when presented with the possibility of this spell that players will just give up.  

It is a tough spell, there ar eno easy answers.  It's 9th level and I don't think there should be an easy answer to deal with something of that power.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 30, 2006)

Elemental said:
			
		

> ...(edit) In the end, that's pretty much my biggest beef with the spell--there's no counter or protection, short of epic magic. Virtually every other spell can be guarded against.





1.  Antimagic field.  Not perfect, but pretty good.
2.  Make your Will saves as good as you can. 
3.  Kill the mage who is going to cast it before he can.
4.  Find ways to lower the DC (are there any?).
5.  Use Wish or Miracle to undo the recent misfortune.  Then see number 3.    
6.  Ensure that as many items as is possible have full cover.

There are probably more...

Given all the tools available to a 17th (+) level party, getting hit by MD by surprise is inexcusable.  Know your enemy.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 30, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Given all the tools available to a 17th (+) level party, getting hit by MD by surprise is inexcusable.  Know your enemy.



 Right, because characters are incapable of surprising other characters of similar and likely lower power levels. ... ?


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 30, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> The spell does not automatically destroy all items.  The defense is a good will save, something that is very important to people in high level games or their character gets held or charmed all the time.




There are a lot of PC concepts where they have low Will saves, but still have strong defenses against Holds and Charms.

For example, Mind Blank or Force of Personality.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 30, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> There are a lot of PC concepts where they have low Will saves, but still have strong defenses against Holds and Charms.
> 
> For example, Mind Blank or Force of Personality.




And then they will have a lot of problems with this spell, as it should be.  If one's concept has a weakness then they will have problems with that weakness.  I fail to see what this matters, a concept is the players choice.


----------



## Elemental (Nov 30, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Second, if an NPC is fanatic to the point they are willing to so ANYTHING - MD is low on the list.   There are FAR better ways to eliminate the PCs.  Wild and self-sacrificing use of Wish or Miracle comes to mind right away.
> 
> Lots of things are "broken" if the NPC is essentially suicidal.  There are many great ways to kill (or worse) if you do not care about saving yourself.




But that wasn't your earlier argument.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> In fact, with an atypical campaign that has very, very few artifacts, even minor ones, the risk factor for casting MD goes way down and the spell becomes a bit too strong due to lack of a presumed balancing factor.




I pointed out ways of removing that balancing factor. And I disagree that spells become broken if you have a heedless NPC. The effects of Miracle can be used by anyone, and Wish is basically DM fiat outside the published limits.

(and "suicidal" is an exaggeration--as has been explained before, the chance is miniscule, and it's easy to come up with circumstances where an NPC would decide it's worth the risk rather than getting slain)

I'll also note that artifacts are outside the normal treasure scale. Apart from wildly variable published adventures (some of which hand artifacts out like candy, others which have none), there are no ways of assessing how many a party "should" have outside of guesswork.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 30, 2006)

Well, this is all very entertaining.

How many actual experiences are there with this spell?

I personally have only one, and it was fine.  No complaints from actual in-play experience.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 30, 2006)

Elemental said:
			
		

> But that wasn't your earlier argument.




You were not talking about NPCs who did not really care about takings the chance to lose all spell abilities forever.

Let's forget hypotheticals for a while and talk about actual in-play experiences,   There must be a few out there.

What happened?  How bad was it, really?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 30, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Well, this is all very entertaining.
> 
> How many actual experiences are there with this spell?




I've run many games that got into high levels.  

This spell has happened at least once in each campaign I've ran that got to 9th level spells.  That's 4 campaigns.  It was used against the PCs a few times and one time it nailed the fighter and he lost a lot of stuff but the cleric and wizard and monk in the group were mostly fine.  The players I can only remember them using it once and it was against a quasi god and they needed all the help they could get.  

I've never had a player complain about anything in our games.  I did get a lot of "Crap!!" comments and "I'm so screwed!!" but no one ever gave up and they found a way to be useful with what they had and with what others had spare.


----------



## Elemental (Nov 30, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> You were not talking about NPCs who did not really care about takings the chance to lose all spell abilities forever.




Could you elaborate on that? I'm honestly not sure what you're saying. If it's what it seemed like--then uh, yes, I _was_ talking about NPC's who weren't bothered about taking the chance.

(an afterthought--if a Wish can restore multiple magic items, why can't it restore spellcasting ability?)

I'm probably coming off as more belligerent than I wanted to in the last few posts, so I'll pull back from this thread a bit.


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 30, 2006)

Elemental said:
			
		

> (an afterthought--if a Wish can restore multiple magic items, why can't it restore spellcasting ability?)




Mainly because MD specifically states that it can't.

I'm with Artoomis on the fear factor of using MD.  It's a fate worse than death*, that cannot be rectified in any way.  That alone means MD should only ever be used as a measure of last resort, no matter how small the chance it blowing up in your face.

*Edit: "It" being the case where casting MD on an artifict causes the caster to lose all casting abilities, not the normal affect of MD.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 30, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> And then they will have a lot of problems with this spell, as it should be.  If one's concept has a weakness then they will have problems with that weakness.  I fail to see what this matters, a concept is the players choice.




I agree that it is a weakness, I was merely pointing out that having a high Will save at high level is typically not required (i.e. it hardly ever comes up in the game) because most high level Will save spells are mind affecting.

There is only a very small percentage of high level Will save spells which are not mind affecting, hence, a player might think his PC is well protected, doing fine, gets hit with an MD and discovers that he is totally screwed.

Most Evocation spells are Reflex saves, most Illusion and Enchantment spells are mind affecting Will saves, most Tranformation and Necromatic spells are Fort saves. Most Abjuration spells are not direct attacks (MD is screwy this way as well).


----------



## Elemental (Nov 30, 2006)

(Desert Gled, good point on Wish)

I'm still not happy with Disjunction as written, but I don't think anyone's going to budge or be budged from this point. If a group's fine with it as written, more power to them. 

The root of my dislike is that it has unequalled potential to ruin _fun_, for reasons detailed here, in a more articulate way than I've been managing. Bolding for emphasis mine:



			
				anon said:
			
		

> Disjunction is a bad spell.  It makes the game less fun.
> 
> Comments about 'real threats of danger' are, of course, correct so far as they go, but IMHO miss the point.  As a player I do want to be challenged.  Losing the use of my magic items does create a scary challenge, as characters encountering 9th level spells are very dependent on their items. But having the items changed to normal items, permanently, isn't challenging, it's just a waste of my time and a huge drain of fun.
> 
> ...




Anyway, the arguments have mostly been made, and any observers have enough from both sides to go on.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 30, 2006)

Elemental said:
			
		

> Could you elaborate on that? I'm honestly not sure what you're saying. If it's what it seemed like--then uh, yes, I _was_ talking about NPC's who weren't bothered about taking the chance.
> 
> (an afterthought--if a Wish can restore multiple magic items, why can't it restore spellcasting ability?)
> 
> I'm probably coming off as more belligerent than I wanted to in the last few posts, so I'll pull back from this thread a bit.




I only meant that I was addressing a balancing factor of a possible fate far worse that death for the caster and only now are you bringing up the possiblity of a caster who does not care.  That takes the argument to a different place.

That's all I meant - it's why my argument was different - because it was in response to the NPC who does not care about his own fate one whit.

Such an NPC might very well use Wish or Miracle and the heck with the personal consequences for a very powerful effect.

Heck, I could see him calling for a Miracle form some dark power to take all the PCs souls and his own as payment, or something like that.  Heck, that might even work!


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 30, 2006)

A note on the NPC who cares not for his/her own fate.  For a powerful neutral or evil character, this is exceedingly rare.

History show us this very well - such people willingly sacrifice others, but not themselves.

A good character (well, maybe an "exalted" one) might very well sacrifice themselves, though.


----------



## Elemental (Nov 30, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I only meant that I was addressing a balancing factor of a possible fate far worse that death for the caster and only now are you bringing up the possiblity of a caster who does not care.  That takes the argument to a different place.
> 
> That's all I meant - it's why my argument was different - because it was in response to the NPC who does not care about his own fate one whit.
> 
> ...




But the point I made was that it was _possible_ to have a character willing to take the small risk and not that unreasonable for several character types that the PC's could quite plausibly face. And they don't have to be "suicidal", just overconfident, cocky, desperate, dedicated or mind controlled.

"Wish or Miracle to wipe out the party" would be wholly down to DM fiat so far as effects go (and would probably lead to the players staging a coup    ), so it's not really useful as a comparison to anything.

If "very common artifacts" and "no spellcaster would ever risk his casting for any reason imaginable" works in your game, good for you. But it wouldn't in mine (or in all other games), and hopefully I've explained why.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Nov 30, 2006)

Would _Contingency _ provide a defense against this?  Does that spell work similar to a readied action, in that it happens immediately before the trigger? 

How about _Ring of Spell Battle_ from _Complete Arcane_?  Would that work?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 30, 2006)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> How about _Ring of Spell Battle_ from _Complete Arcane_?  Would that work?




What's it do?


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 30, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> What's it do?




It allows the caster to make Spellcraft checks every round to know all spells being cast within 60 feet (even if the caster cannot see or hear the spell) and allows the caster to change the target of one spell once per day. I think it is specified as target (not origin point), so I do not think it would work.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 30, 2006)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Would _Contingency _ provide a defense against this?  Does that spell work similar to a readied action, in that it happens immediately before the trigger?




Contingency has to affect your person.

So, it might if the Contingency was based on a successful Spellcraft by the user of the Contingency to detect an MD spell being cast. The user could probably use Contingency to then Teleport home or some such.


----------



## Artoomis (Dec 1, 2006)

Elemental said:
			
		

> ...If "very common artifacts" and "no spellcaster would ever risk his casting for any reason imaginable" works in your game, good for you. But it wouldn't in mine (or in all other games), and hopefully I've explained why.




No, you have not.  You have certainly done a fine job of explaining why it would not work in YOUR game. Not "all other games."  Personally, I would never presume to know what is best for "all other games."

Also, even one artifact per high-level (17th +) PC is not "very common."  High level PCs are not "very common" on the first place.

I submit that minor artifacts are fairly rare, but enough exists that to have one (plus or minus) for each 17th (+) level PC would not be unreasonable at all.

But, again, I would also count legendary weapons as artifacts, so that ups the number somewhat, too.


----------



## Slaved (Dec 1, 2006)

In order to have an npc fear casting it artifacts would have to be either fairly common or he would have to know ahead of time that the party carries them.

After all, this high level archmage might've fought off thousands of adventurers by now. Unless he has dozens of artifacts just laying around everywhere from these fights it could easily be justified that most people just do not have them. Sure, the pc's might, but they are special. Typically much more special than other run of the mill adventurers floating around the universe.

So, to me, looking at it from the npc's point of view he has no reason not to cast it. It destroys buffs, it takes the enemies down a few pegs, and it is incredibly unlikely for an artifact to be around and able to be hit by the spell. Even if there is one, because even that many is a rarity, the chances of it being destroyed and losing spellcasting ability is tiny.

Couple a near zero chance of the opponents having any plus a near zero chance of losing spellcasting ability even if they do along with the incredible known immediate and very much more likely reward that comes with casting it and I could not justify an enemy npc not casting it. Unless the world was known to have a great deal of artifacts and that any powerful person it likely to have at least one.


----------



## Elemental (Dec 1, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> No, you have not.  You have certainly done a fine job of explaining why it would not work in YOUR game. Not "all other games."  Personally, I would never presume to know what is best for "all other games."




Which is, um, _exactly what I was saying_--that your model of campaign isn't the same as some other groups. I'll rephrase:

"But it wouldn't work in mine, and it wouldn't in all other games."

(as opposed to "in *any* other games")

Clearer?



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> But, again, I would also count legendary weapons as artifacts, so that ups the number somewhat, too.




It's a sound way of making Disjunction more chancy, even if it's not RAW.


----------

