# If you haven't banned Mage's Disjunction, how have you house-ruled it?



## Angel Tarragon (Mar 31, 2008)

*Mage’s Disjunction*
Abjuration
*Level:* Magic 9, Sor/Wiz 9
*Components:* V
*Casting Time:* 1 standard action
*Range:* Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
*Area:* All magical effects and magic items within a 40-ft.-radius burst
*Duration:* Instantaneous
*Saving Throw:* Will negates (object)
*Spell Resistance:* No

All magical effects and magic items within the radius of the spell, except for those that you carry or touch, are disjoined. That is, spells and spell-like effects are separated into their individual components (ending the effect as a dispel magic spell does), and each permanent magic item must make a successful Will save or be turned into a normal item. An item in a creature’s possession uses its own Will save bonus or its possessor’s Will save bonus, whichever is higher.

You also have a 1% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic field. If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items within it are disjoined.

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.

-------------------

What changes have you made to this spell if you haven't outright banned it?


----------



## maggot (Mar 31, 2008)

First, I removed the part about undoing artifacts, otherwise the spell becomes "destroy plot".

Second, I made it destroy only one item per person (will save negates, roll like failing a save on a 1).  Otherwise the spell is too brutal and takes too long to resolve.

Third, I made the range 0'.


----------



## Mark Chance (Mar 31, 2008)

No changes. The spell is just fine IMO. Thinking a 9th-level spell is overpowered is like complaining that water is wet.


----------



## Zelc (Mar 31, 2008)

My biggest beef with it is it destroys magic items.  Changing it to suppress magic items for 1d4 rounds as per normal with Dispels would make it far more balanced (I guess you'd have to take out the part about destroying artifacts...).


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 31, 2008)

I've kept it as is. No major problems so far, although it isn't used often by players or DM.


----------



## CleverNickName (Mar 31, 2008)

Zelc said:
			
		

> My biggest beef with it is it destroys magic items.  Changing it to suppress magic items for 1d4 rounds as per normal with Dispels would make it far more balanced (I guess you'd have to take out the part about destroying artifacts...).



This, except the suppression lasts for 24 hours.  That being said, I can only remember one single time it has ever been used in one of my games.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2008)

No changes in any group I'm playing in.

Even the part about destroying artifacts isn't bothersome- you have a 1% chance of doing so and you risk losing your spellcasting powers in the bargain while simultaneously having a 95% chance of attracting "the attention of some powerful being who has an interest in or connection with the device."

Just what you want- the artifact is gone, one of your best spellcasters is now effectively a low powered fighter, and Orcus shows up...


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Mar 31, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Even the part about destroying artifacts isn't bothersome- you have a 1% chance of doing so and you risk losing your spellcasting powers in the bargain while simultaneously having a 95% chance of attracting "the attention of some powerful being who has an interest in or connection with the device."




Right, but the level at which 9th level spells are gained for Clerics and Wizards is 17th level, thus 17% chance of destroying said artifact. Remember, thats *1% per caster level*.


----------



## Blackrat (Mar 31, 2008)

It's a 9th level spell so I haven't done anything to it. Being overpowering is okay for me at that point.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2008)

> Remember, thats 1% per caster level.




Right- that was a typo of omission on my part.

But the logic remains the same- few parties would have more than 2 casters this powerful, and the risk of losing 100% of one's spellpower to a failed Will save when The Being from Elswhere shows up ticked that his favorite monkey-trap has been destroyed is pretty daunting.

Even if your PC makes his Will save, he'll still be down a precious 9th level spell when TBfE pops in.

Now, if we're talking about a 17%+ chance to remove the Orb of Screwing Up Everything and Everyone on the Plane from reality, somebody might think that all of the above is an acceptible risk.

But for Baba Yaga's Hut or the like?  I don't think there's too many spellcasters who'd risk everything to rid the world of _that!_


----------



## the Jester (Mar 31, 2008)

I haven't changed it at all; I use it as-is.


----------



## Kerrick (Mar 31, 2008)

I dropped it to a 30-foot radius and made the following changes:


_Disjunction_ functions like _dispel magic_ except as noted below.

_Targeted Dispel:_ _Disjunction_ automatically dispels any single spell or effect of non-divine origin and lower caster level. Against spells with a higher caster level, the caster must make a dispel check. Magic items must make a Will save or be rendered permanently nonmagical. Artifacts cannot be affected by a disjunction. Items inside an antimagic field cannot be targeted.

_Area Dispel:_ There is no maximum caster level for the caster level check to dispel ongoing spells and effects. Unlike dispel magic, disjunction has a chance to dispel multiple spells active on a creature - it checks for every spell. Magic items must make Will saves or have its magical properties suppressed for 1d4 rounds. The caster has a 1% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic field. If the field survives, no items within it are subject to the dispel effect.

_Counterspell:_ Disjunction automatically succeeds when used as a counterspell, unless the other caster is also casting a disjunction, in which case caster level checks must be made as normal. Disjunction can be used to counterspell an epic spell, but the caster must make a caster level check.


----------



## Quartz (Mar 31, 2008)

IMHO the only thing you really have to do is determine what exactly counts as an artifact. I wouldn't count something like the Staff of the Magi as one - only something created by a deity's SDA, and often not even then. OTOH something like Pharanme's Urn in Sepulchrave's Wyre would, being outside creation, simply be unaffected.


----------



## Storminator (Mar 31, 2008)

The only game I saw it used in, the DM ruled it lasted 1 day/caster level.

Well, that was the second time it was used. The first time he just used it as is.

The real problem is that when Disjunction hits your 24th level party, it's the end of the evening, as it takes over an hour of rolling saves and recalculating the sheet. Not the most fun session ever...

PS


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Mar 31, 2008)

As is, except it suppresses instead of destroying items.  Alternately, it *might* destroy one item.

This is primarily because the characters who are least likely to make the save are boned the most.  I don't particularly enjoy having to powerbuild my rogue so he can take one of these and still be able to do anything ever.

In a previous game, where the DM had started to use disjunction, my psion started research on a power that would bounce the effect back to the caster (through a spacetime inversion, handwaving, etc).

Brad


----------



## Li Shenron (Mar 31, 2008)

maggot said:
			
		

> First, I removed the part about undoing artifacts, otherwise the spell becomes "destroy plot".




Oddly, I consider that part a plot hook. Using Mordenkainen's Disjunction is one way of SOME PC parties to complete a mission of destroying an artifact, but the price is... 95% chance of starting another adventure!

I know that it can potentially remove ideas like "you can only destroy this artifact by travelling to Mordor", but I have no problems with SOME archwizards in the world being able to attempt doing it with the spell. 

Fact is, if the party knows how to cast the spell, I won't probably bother using an artifact as a mean to trigger the next adventure (the Mordor case). I will simply use another hook. One or the other hook doesn't really matter, they are all usually trite ideas anyway.

By the way, I see this spell as a "last resort" that a wizard would never use repeatedly, but only when all other options have failed.

And also I rarely play games that high level, which I reserve to an incredibly few PC/NPC in the world. Because of that, I do not even expect 9th level spells to be very balanced.   



			
				maggot said:
			
		

> Otherwise the spell is too brutal and takes too long to resolve.




That could actually been seen as a deterrent


----------



## Quartz (Apr 1, 2008)

A party of 12th level or higher should expect Disjunction to be used against them at least once per level.  Apart from anything else it provides a good excuse to churn the magic items. Individual items can be restored with a Wish, of course, and if someone were to Wish that the enemy had miscast that spell...

Further, nothing provides more glee - or despair - than when Disjunction is reflected by _Spell Turning_.

The recalc business is a red herring: you simply do it all - or as much as you can - ahead of time. You've got copies of the character sheets, so simply pre-roll and note the failures. Then calculate the results. You can even do the buff spells in advance.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 1, 2008)

The game needs more spells and effects like this, to keep the proliferation of magic items under control. 

The only thing I might change would be to introduce a lower-level version of it that would merely dampen artifacts and high-power stuff for a short time but could still take out minor magic e.g. scrolls, potions, low-plus stuff, permanently.

Lanefan


----------



## maggot (Apr 1, 2008)

Spell turning does not work on Mord's disjunction.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 3, 2008)

maggot said:
			
		

> Spell turning does not work on Mord's disjunction.




Mordenkainen's / Mage's Disjunction isn't the only Disjunction out there.


----------



## Rugult (Apr 3, 2008)

I think Disjunction is one of the 'Nuclear Missile' spells in the SRD.  Players should be wary of using it because DM's may well retort in good kind.  Thus a fine stalemate has to be met.

Since I am running the War of the Burning Sky campaign path, several of the enemies are specialized in counterspelling and dispelling, which means at epic levels there will likely be some caster capable of disjunction.  Hopefully it won't come up too often, but I figure the players should always be ready for one or two NPCs keeping a nuke in their back pocket for when things go bad.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 3, 2008)

Rugult said:
			
		

> I think Disjunction is one of the 'Nuclear Missile' spells in the SRD.  Players should be wary of using it because DM's may well retort in good kind.  Thus a fine stalemate has to be met.




I disagree: get the players used to it and there's no problem. Equally, when designing an adventure where Disjunction is used, you need to drop the CRs slightly to reflect the possibility that PCs might not be up to par.

And at Epic levels, Disjunction is not an issue because the party mage enchants everyone to be immune.


----------



## the Jester (Apr 5, 2008)

the Jester said:
			
		

> I haven't changed it at all; I use it as-is.




In all fairness, I guess it's worth mentioning that I do have a "counterspell" for it- a 9th level abjuration called Disjunction Buffer that "takes one for the team" for all your other effects when you are hit with a MD. It is destroyed in the process, though, so if you are up against someone packing multiple MDs you're kinda screwed.


----------



## joela (Apr 6, 2008)

*Go ahead*

I'd leave it as is. My players know, though, that I  believe in what's good for the goose is good for the gander and that their PCs will eventually meet an opponent(s) who has the same spell.

_At will_


----------



## Crothian (Apr 6, 2008)

We never house ruled it.  I told the PCs from the start of the campaign they are not their equipment and that equipment can come and go.  They were fine with that and understood.

As for the time it takes, I find that slow players are slow no matter what we are doing.  There are ways to speed things up though.


----------



## ardentmoth (Apr 6, 2008)

*points at the 95% chance of angry deities*
*does it again*
*once more for emphasis*

DM: Cope with it. Deal with it. Don't Cry.


----------

