# How do you handle Mordenkainen's Disjunction?



## Stalker0

I personally consider Mordenkainen's Disjunction to be THE most broken spell in the game.

First, it automatically dispels anything in its area. Anything automatic in dnd is bad, and magic items are the lifeblood of characters at high levels. Without magic items, characters cannot beat any monster unless its CR is drastically lower than their level.

Second, the chance to destroy 100,000 gold magic items is so harsh. And as a one time screw, it hurts the players much more than npcs. Disjunction the npcs all you want, I've got more, but all it takes for one to permanently neuter the pcs.

If you are not in agreement with me that's fine, but for those who are, what do you do in your games to prevent what I am describing?

One suggestion one of my players had was to make disjoining taboo. gods like Baccob while normally uncaring, might consider it a sticking point if people start permanently breaking magic.

What other ways do you handle it?


----------



## green slime

_Mord's D_ is like atomic weapons. 

Firstly, the NPCs they are battling do not always have access to this spell. Those that do, are mostly the greedy kind, and would rather have the fingers on the items at hand. Of course, if being really pushed, they can unleash it. But it isn't exactly common place for 18th+ level wizards to have this spell just lying around ready to whack the PCs over the head. Seriously, for near-epic NPC wizards, with _clone_ and _stasis clone_ are you really going to be too concerned about these idiotic PCs spoiling your long term plans? Sure it hurts when they poke their fingers in some little side plot you have going, but really they aren't more than a nuisance?

Secondly, such bada$$ dudes are likely to have mean allies, who don't appreciate their weaponry disappearing either.

*shrug* I guess my players don't overuse and abuse this strategy, and neither do I.


----------



## green slime

Also, as the DM, If I plan to use this atomic weapon in an encounter, then I had better plan how to get the wealth levels sorted out again....So it would have to be like a climatic encounter, with foreshadowing, and not just some random encounter on the way to the local magic shoppe


----------



## DM2

What, green slime, don't you have "18th Level Sorcerer in love/hate relationship with magic" on your wandering monster table?


----------



## orangefruitbat

*How often would it show up?*

PCs don't use it very often, because they want all the magical loot.

NPCs presumably are thinking the same. So, presumably the NPC wizards want to get their grubby little hands on all those scrolls, potions, wands, etc. that are currently in the hands of the players.

About the only time I would see a wizard using this spell against PCs is if he has nothing left to lose - "You may have won, you stupid do-gooders, but one more step and I'll nuke ALL your magic items! I mean it". Could be an interesting situation.

Monsters that don't use magic items but have it as a spell-like ability could be brutal - but I can't think of any creatures that have this SA.




			
				Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I personally consider Mordenkainen's Disjunction to be THE most broken spell in the game.
> 
> First, it automatically dispels anything in its area. Anything automatic in dnd is bad, and magic items are the lifeblood of characters at high levels. Without magic items, characters cannot beat any monster unless its CR is drastically lower than their level.
> 
> Second, the chance to destroy 100,000 gold magic items is so harsh. And as a one time screw, it hurts the players much more than npcs. Disjunction the npcs all you want, I've got more, but all it takes for one to permanently neuter the pcs.
> 
> If you are not in agreement with me that's fine, but for those who are, what do you do in your games to prevent what I am describing?
> 
> One suggestion one of my players had was to make disjoining taboo. gods like Baccob while normally uncaring, might consider it a sticking point if people start permanently breaking magic.
> 
> What other ways do you handle it?


----------



## FrankTrollman

My big gripe with the spell is that it ruins character concepts and makes the game less fun.

I "handle" the spell by never using it as a player or DM, and asking the other players to do the same.

Kind of how I handle Astral Projection.

-Frank


----------



## BVB

Here's a deterrant idea: Let it be known that every major building in the campaign has a weight-bearing, main support column carved out of weak wood ... transmuted to steel. If someone gets the urge to cast M.D. in the house, he'd better plan on dealing with a major headache when the ceiling collapses.


----------



## Tiberius

In the last campaign I played in, I was planning to make Disjunction my lead-off spell for any given battle, once we reached those levels.  Too bad the game ended when we were 3rd level or so.

I don't really see it as a problem.  Sure, you nuke their stuff.  That just means that the take the now-"merely"-masterwork items and go bully CR 1-5 creatures for their loot for a few in-game months.  Slaughtering tribes of evil humanoids would be easy for characters of those levels, and very profitable.

-Tiberius


----------



## Storminator

Our DM ruled that the magic items are only suppressed for one day per caster level. Still makes it a powerful spell, but not the end of the world.

When I failed my saves (what a time for a string of bad rolls  ), I "lost" over a quarter million gold in items. Fortunately that only lasted a few weeks.

We've seen MD nearly half a dozen times, and it's rather terrifying. Watching a whole parties buffs go down at once...nasty.

PS


----------



## BVB

I really don't like relying on magic items anyway. Maybe it's a perspective leaking in from the real world, but I believe that it's too easy to have your goodies taken away, so don't grow attached to them to begin with. 

So you get hit by MD -- big deal. Either you're in the same straits now as your enemy and you fight it out like real men, or he's still too tough and you run away to fight another day.


----------



## FrankTrollman

> So you get hit by MD -- big deal. Either you're in the same straits now as your enemy and you fight it out like real men, or he's still too tough and you run away to fight another day.




The problem with this line of reasoning is Shadows.

As simple CR 3 Shadow is only harmed by magic weapons and spells.

That means that without a magic weapon, Fighters, Rogues, and Monks _can't hurt them_ - while a Wizard or Cleric still pretty much blow them away without a second thought. That sort of discrepency is going to come back and apply to a lot of things - but with incorporeal creatures it is most prominent.

At CR 17, you are expected to face a bunch of incorporeal opponents. You are also expected to have magical weapons - so that balances out.

Mix MDJ into the mix, though - and you can be in a situation where there are incorporeal opponents and _no_ magic weapons. That's unbalanced.

MDJ rarely unbalances an _encounter_ - or even has terribly much effect, honestly. But it is trivially easy for it to unbalance a _campaign_.

For similar situations: tjeck out Seething Eyebane from BoVD. It's a first level spell that costs Constitution points to cast and makes heir eyes explode. Not unbalanced in a _fight_. The target fails a save and spends the rest of the combat blinded. No big deal.

But in a _campaign_ setting - that PC is going to be blind until someone forks out with a _Regeneration_ spell. That character is so far in debt that it would be easier just to start a new 1st level character and move on from there.

That's why MDJ can't be used. Not because it is "too powerful" in the sense that it makes one side too likely to win - but because it throws too large of a monkey wrench into future encounters.

-Frank


----------



## Kae'Yoss

I don't like the spell. 

As a player I don't use it because I'm to greedy. ;-) And even If I weren't, there's usually someone who is. I played a bladesinger once, and played him practically as a chaotic good elven pendant to the paladin - champion of Corellon, dedicated to the elven race, totally opposing evil and all that. Every time we found an evil magic item (like a unholy sword), I destroyed it. One of these was an epic sword of unholy power - I think it was worth more than a million GP. The party evoker went nuts about it. Now, I had a perfect excuse for testroying that: If I didn't it were used for killing good people, and possible even elves, which I was sworn to protect. I can imagine his reaction if I were to destroy expensive magical items just because, without any strong justification like that. And honestly, I probably would do about the same if another party member did that.

As a DM I don't use it because I'm not that kind of bastard. I like to challenge (and sometimes even annoy) the players, making every victory hard earned, but I won't deprive them of their loot. I'm just not that kind of DM or player. Especially not if you could blast a PC to poverty with a single spell. IMO this spell belongs into the Book of Vile Darkness ;-). 

I might use a modified version that renders the stuff useless for a time (1d4 hours or something, like dispel magic, but on a grander scale).


----------



## WingOver

*Mutually Assured Disjunction*

I like green slime's atomic weapon analogy.  I'm playing a high level wizard and we just reached a point where we can expect Disjunctions to start flying.  My wizard has adopted the principle of *Mutually Assured Disjunction* - if my opponent launches on me, I'm launching on him.

From a campaign realism standpoint, this principle may be enough to deter most sane, intelligent spellcasters from unleashing indiscriminately (especially against other spellcasters).  Imagine the nasty reputation among the spellcasting community for the wizard who abuses Disjunction.

From a mechanics standpoint, Disjunction may be held in check by two facts:

1. Disjoining unknown opponents is risky business because who knows if they have some minor artifact on them?  My wizard would be hard pressed to unleash a Disjunction for fear of losing his spellcasting abilities forever.  

2. A saving throw is allowed for items so that helps mitigate the effects somewhat.  All spell effects are goners, but the items have a chance.  (And sure, the save is vs. a 9th level spell, but at least its not automatic.)

I'll find out in tomorrow's game whether my wizard will go M.A.D. or not.  We've infiltrated a lair of assassins and I bet their leader is a high-level wizard.


----------



## Norfleet

WingOver said:
			
		

> My wizard has adopted the principle of *Mutually Assured Disjunction* - if my opponent launches on me, I'm launching on him.
> 
> From a campaign realism standpoint, this principle may be enough to deter most sane, intelligent spellcasters from unleashing indiscriminately (especially against other spellcasters).  Imagine the nasty reputation among the spellcasting community for the wizard who abuses Disjunction.



That's a really STUPID idea. Now that all of your stuff is toast, you're going to go and toast all of their stuff, meaning, your loot, as well?

The alternative being that your opponent has no lootables, and therefore, there's not much of a point to trying to destroy something which doesn't exist.

I kinda expected a better idea from a wizard with a 22 Int.


----------



## WingOver

Norfleet said:
			
		

> That's a really STUPID idea. Now that all of your stuff is toast, you're going to go and toast all of their stuff, meaning, your loot, as well?
> 
> The alternative being that your opponent has no lootables, and therefore, there's not much of a point to trying to destroy something which doesn't exist.
> 
> I kinda expected a better idea from a wizard with a 22 Int.




How about the alternative scenario: 

Now that all my stuff is toast (including my defensive spells), I allow him to keep all his defenses up just so I can indulge my greedy side in the miniscule chance that I survive the encounter and get to loot his body.  Sorry, but I will respond in kind and disjoin him before he can slaughter me and the party.

The point is that my wizard will not pre-emptively disjoin for roleplaying reasons.  However it is my policy (and the DM knows this) that I will retaliate in kind if it happens.  Mutually assured disjunction is a deterrent.

I don't suppose you play high-level wizards, then?  Or do you just disjoin everything around you?


----------



## Hypersmurf

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> As simple CR 3 Shadow is only harmed by magic weapons and spells.
> 
> That means that without a magic weapon, Fighters, Rogues, and Monks _can't hurt them_...




On the other hand, a complicated CR 10 Shadow - with 7 Barbarian levels - _can_ be hurt by the monk, interestingly enough.

-Hyp.


----------



## Piratecat

I've considered saying that MD dispels all spells, and neutralizes magical items for x amount of time - one minute per level, up to one day per level. I'm not sure if that would make the spell more or less powerful, though!


----------



## Artoomis

How about this scenario:

The party has been over-rewarded and now has so many items that there strength is very high for their level.  They also have a few artifacts.

The final battle approaches (of the campaign, of some major objective, whatever).

Big bad guy KNOWS he'll lose this battle without something dramatic.  He casts the best prep spells on himself he can think off and, when the party is in range, lets loose an M's Disjunction.  For this example, let's say that some artifact is destroyed and the bad guy loses his spell powers (NOT part of his evil plan, of course).

A number of magic items get zapped - how many depends on character saving throws, naturally.  Since spell effects and magic times get destroyed at the same time, I'd allow all temp boosts to still be ineffect for the item saving throws.

DC will likely be around 25 or a bit more.

The really fun part is when the party realizes that a whole lot of their recent treasure is in a bag of holding  - best hope whoever has that makes the save!!

End result?  The good guys win the day and the campaign is more or less "reset" to a more reasonable magic item value level.

So I LIKE the spell.  But it's use should be carefully planned out by the DM.  If player's want to use it, let them.  They'll only hurt themselves in terms of lost treasure. The NPC effects on artifacts and the effect on the NPC's spellcasting powers should probably be well thought out ahead of time to help things go in the direction you want them to go.  Keep pure randomness if that's importnant to your players, though.


----------



## Artoomis

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I've considered saying that MD dispels all spells, and neutralizes magical items for x amount of time - one minute per level, up to one day per level. I'm not sure if that would make the spell more or less powerful, though!




I think it would certainly make it more popular!  Someone would use it in every major enounter, if they could.


----------



## FrankTrollman

> On the other hand, a complicated CR 10 Shadow - with 7 Barbarian levels - can be hurt by the monk, interestingly enough.



Um... no it can't.

It now has DR, but it still takes no damage from non-magical sources and the monk fist is still not magical for the purposes of damaging incorporeal foes.

It's like if a creature had DR 15/ Good and Piercing. If you have a blessed mace, you still aren't doing jack to it.

You have to be magical for the purposes of damaging incorporeal foes to damage an incorporeal foe.

-Frank


----------



## WingOver

Artoomis said:
			
		

> How about this scenario:
> 
> Big bad guy KNOWS he'll lose this battle without something dramatic.  He casts the best prep spells on himself he can think off and, when the party is in range, lets loose an M's Disjunction.  For this example, let's say that some artifact is destroyed and the bad guy loses his spell powers (NOT part of his evil plan, of course).




I imagine a wizard backed up against the wall would be a lot more likely to disjoin (I would).  But when I actually get into character and consider how important magic is to me, years of study and all that, and then to have it all snuffed out with one unlucky disjoin, it adds a new perspective on using that spell.




			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> End result? The good guys win the day and the campaign is more or less "reset" to a more reasonable magic item value level.




Back when I DMed 2ed, I actually wanted the PCs to fail their saving throws just for this reason.  They usually managed to amass a fortune in treasure items over the course of the campaign and the only way to get rid of the excess (without being cheap and using thieves) was for them to fail saves against fireballs and such.  But now in 3ed with the item cost guidelines by level, monty-haul is less of a problem.


----------



## Hypersmurf

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> It now has DR, but it still takes no damage from non-magical sources and the monk fist is still not magical for the purposes of damaging incorporeal foes.




Conan the Shadow is a foe with damage reduction.

The monk's fist is treated as a magic weapon for purposes of dealing damage to foes with damage reduction.

Thus, the monk's fist is treated as a magic weapon for purposes of dealing damage to Conan the Shadow.

Conan the Shadow, being incorporeal, cannot be harmed by non-magic weapons... but for purposes of damaging Conan the Shadow, the monk's fist _is_ a magic weapon.




> It's like if a creature had DR 15/ Good and Piercing. If you have a blessed mace, you still aren't doing jack to it.




No, you aren't.  Because your mace is not considered a Piercing weapon.

That's not an analogous situation.  The monk's fist _is_ considered a magic weapon... if the enemy has DR.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Um... no it can't.
> 
> It now has DR, but it still takes no damage from non-magical sources and the monk fist is still not magical for the purposes of damaging incorporeal foes.
> 
> It's like if a creature had DR 15/ Good and Piercing. If you have a blessed mace, you still aren't doing jack to it.
> 
> You have to be magical for the purposes of damaging incorporeal foes to damage an incorporeal foe.
> 
> -Frank




First, there is no such thing as being "magical for the purposes of damaging incorporeal foes." 

Second: 







> At 4th level, a monk’s unarmed attacks are empowered with ki. Her unarmed attacks are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction.





> Incorporeal creatures can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, by magic weapons, or by spells, spell-like effects, or supernatural effects. They are immune to all nonmagical attack forms. They are not burned by normal fires, affected by natural cold, or harmed by mundane acids.
> Even when struck by magic or magic weapons, an incorporeal creature has a 50% chance to ignore any damage from a corporeal source—except for a force effect or damage dealt by a ghost touch weapon.




The monk's "magic" fists are a supernatural effect, so I'd allow it to work, but I see your point.  There fists are magic _the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction_.  Incorporeality is different from DR.


----------



## FrankTrollman

That's a very sketchy reading you have there Smurf.

It says:


> Her unarmed attacks are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction.




This really depends upon whether there is an order of operations (ie.: whether it checks incorporeality and DR at the same time or not).

The Incorporeal text says:



> Incorporeal creatures can only be harmed by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons, [...]




So if you are going to invoke the obscurica of Incorporeal creatures _with_ DR being affected by monks - I'm going to invoke _counter_ obscurica:

Monk Ki Strike doesn't say it counts as magic for the purposes of _harming_ things, only for the purposes of _damaging_ them.

OK. Now that we've gotten _that_ piece of silliness out of our systems, let's get back to the point: The game is designed predicated on the idea that characters have magical weapons. If player characters do not have magical weapons, the game is not _intended_ to be balanced - and thus probably won't be.

-Frank


----------



## Hypersmurf

Artoomis said:
			
		

> The monk's "magic" fists are a supernatural effect, so I'd allow it to work, but I see your point.  There fists are magic _the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction_.  Incorporeality is different from DR.




If it were phrased "for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction", I'd agree completely.

But that's not what it says.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Monk Ki Strike doesn't say it counts as magic for the purposes of _harming_ things, only for the purposes of _damaging_ them.




_Harm_ was nerfed, so it's no great loss 

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If it were phrased "for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction", I'd agree completely.
> 
> But that's not what it says.
> 
> -Hyp.




How is "... treated as magic weapons for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction" functionally any different from "for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction?"  I'm not following you, nor did  understand what you are or are not agreeing with.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Artoomis said:
			
		

> How is "... treated as magic weapons for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction" functionally any different from "for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction?"




In the first case: If the creature has damage reduction, then for the purpose of dealing damage _to that creature_, the fists are treated as magic weapons.  He's incorporeal?  Doesn't matter - for the purpose of dealing damage to him, my fists are magic weapons.

In the second case: The fists ignore DR/magic.  He's incorporeal?  Problem.  My fists aren't considered magic weapons for the purpose of damaging the creature, only for the purpose of overcoming his DR... so they won't harm him while he's incorporeal.

Analogy: the difference between "If the shop sells icecreams, I'll give you a dollar", and "I'll give you a dollar with which to buy an icecream from the shop."

In the first case, as long as there are icecreams for sale, you get a dollar that you can spend on anything you like.  In the second case, you can _only_ spend the dollar on an icecream.

-Hyp.


----------



## FrankTrollman

Although, just as in the ice cream example, it can be interpreted using Natural English to mean that the dollar goes towards ice cream. Or that your hands don't qualify as magical for any other damaging purpose than penetrating the DR.

his was much clearer in 3e - where you did not, for instance, inflict the _extra_ damage on creatures with DR.

-Frank


----------



## Hypersmurf

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Although, just as in the ice cream example, it can be interpreted using Natural English to mean that the dollar goes towards ice cream.




It might be what the guy with the dollar thought he was saying, but it's not what he said...



> This was much clearer in 3e - where you did not, for instance, inflict the _extra_ damage on creatures with DR.




Uh... lost me.  Which extra damage?

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis

Looking back to 3e was a good idea  



> ..The unarmed strike damage from such an attack can deal damage to a creature with damage reduction as if the blow were made with a weapon with a +1 enhancement bonus...




Looks pretty similar - the creature must have damage reduction for it to apply. Inorporeal creatures do not (well, they might, but not as a function of being incorporeal).

Still, I'd give it to them.  It's rather hypertechnical, but it _is_ a supernatural effect, and supernatural effects can affect an inorporeal creature.


----------



## Cedric

It's 9th level...

It allows a Will Save of the item or item's possessor, whichever is better

There are dramatic drawbacks to using it

In short, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen...it's a perfectly reasonable spell. I'm very much opposed to the new Kinder, Gentler approach to D&D. 

Cedric


----------



## Hypersmurf

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Looks pretty similar - the creature must have damage reduction for it to apply. Inorporeal creatures do not (well, they might, but not as a function of being incorporeal).




That's why it only works if the Shadow has 7 levels of Barbarian.

Against an ordinary Shadow, the monk is out of luck.  Give it some DR, though, and he can hit it.

-Hyp.


----------



## Storminator

Cedric said:
			
		

> It's 9th level...
> 
> It allows a Will Save of the item or item's possessor, whichever is better
> 
> There are dramatic drawbacks to using it
> 
> In short, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen...it's a perfectly reasonable spell. I'm very much opposed to the new Kinder, Gentler approach to D&D.
> 
> Cedric




So when you're hit with MD and you botch the saves, it's time to roll up a new PC with standard equipment? Yes, that sounds like fun.   

I had a 17th level PC get whacked down to a ring of jumping and a potion. Lost a dozen points of attack, another 15 of AC, a third of my saves, a quarter of my hp, 2d6+4 (and keen, and improved multipier) of damage. I dropped an easy 8 CR on the first round of the fight, _then_ got my ass handed to me. I don't know too many groups that have a spare quarter million gold sitting around.

The problem with the spell isn't the power, the problem is that it's no fun. Getting wiped out is not cool, especially if, like me, you're the only one in the party that gets hit. Suddenly I'm no longer in my friends' league, and that makes the game hard to play.

PS


----------



## Grog

Another screwy thing about MD is that it's more powerful than Epic Dispelling.


----------



## Norfleet

WingOver said:
			
		

> How about the alternative scenario:
> 
> Now that all my stuff is toast (including my defensive spells), I allow him to keep all his defenses up just so I can indulge my greedy side in the miniscule chance that I survive the encounter and get to loot his body.  Sorry, but I will respond in kind and disjoin him before he can slaughter me and the party.
> 
> The point is that my wizard will not pre-emptively disjoin for roleplaying reasons.  However it is my policy (and the DM knows this) that I will retaliate in kind if it happens.  Mutually assured disjunction is a deterrent.
> 
> I don't suppose you play high-level wizards, then?  Or do you just disjoin everything around you?



You DO have a number of better options: AMF can temporarily suppress all buffs. Of course, yours will be similarly suppressed, but now you don't have any. Greater Dispelling can target the opposing wizard's buffs without destroying your only source of magic goodies, and Disintegrate is quite easily capable of wiping out the opposing wizard(perhaps overly helpfully leaving his loot behind).

None of this calls for destroying your loot.

Mord's Disjunction is really the tool of a very BAD wizard. Why? Because the worse of a wizard you are, the lower the will save DC will be, and the more likely your opponent passes this will save, thereby preserving his items. If you happen to be a really inept wizard who barely managed to squeak by with 9th level casting, and never attempted to pump his save DCs, by all means, use this against every single cleric and wizard you find. Airburst to reduce the level of collateral damage through restricting the ground spread(I can't believe I'm trying to reduce collateral damage here). This is probably the single case where you actually WANT your opponent to SUCCEED on his save.


----------



## Cedric

> So when you're hit with MD and you botch the saves, it's time to roll up a new PC with standard equipment? Yes, that sounds like fun.




Three things...

1. Don't keep all of your eggs in one basket, have backup gear. Sure, it won't be as good as your main gear, but it'll be good. 

2. Make sure your character is more than just a moving collection of equipment. Give him/her enough depth and personality to transcend whatever may be in the backpack.

3. Come better prepared. At those levels there are ample divination spells and abilities to collect information. If you find that the opponent you face has or may have a particularly devistating attack form or spell, find a way to neutralize or find a different opponent. 

At any level of the game, 1st - whatever...there should be risk. Risk of death, risk of character loss, risk of equipment loss. It's a life threatening adventure, not an extended shopping trip. 

Cedric


----------



## WingOver

Norfleet said:
			
		

> You DO have a number of better options: AMF can temporarily suppress all buffs. Of course, yours will be similarly suppressed, but now you don't have any. Greater Dispelling can target the opposing wizard's buffs without destroying your only source of magic goodies, and Disintegrate is quite easily capable of wiping out the opposing wizard(perhaps overly helpfully leaving his loot behind).
> 
> None of this calls for destroying your loot.




I don't ever want to use Disjunction if I can help it.  I agree 100% that it's messy and may potentially destroy magic items.  But vs. another wizard, a disjunction response is necessary for survival.  If I find myself suddenly left defenseless from his disjoin, I have no choice but to hit him back, the heck with potential lost loot (hopefully he doesn't have an artifact on him).  I'd rather be poor than dead.  Besides, a wizard has the best chance of saving against it anyway, effectively turning it into an unresistable dispel magic.

Anti-magic Field is a deathwish for wizards (unless you're talking about a private duel).  I'd rather use Shapechange, turn into a beholder, and nail him with the anti-magic cone.

I want to emphasize that I don't consider Disjunction an attack option.  I consider it an assured response, a deterrent that will give pause to any enemy who knows that he has a Disjunction coming his way if he launches first.




			
				Norfleet said:
			
		

> Mord's Disjunction is really the tool of a very BAD wizard. Why? Because the worse of a wizard you are, the lower the will save DC will be, and the more likely your opponent passes this will save, thereby preserving his items. If you happen to be a really inept wizard who barely managed to squeak by with 9th level casting, and never attempted to pump his save DCs, by all means, use this against every single cleric and wizard you find. Airburst to reduce the level of collateral damage through restricting the ground spread(I can't believe I'm trying to reduce collateral damage here). This is probably the single case where you actually WANT your opponent to SUCCEED on his save.




Interesting point about wanting your opponent to succeed their save.  This makes wizards and clerics with the high Will saves the best targets for this spell, in that regard.  However, my wizard still wouldn't risk hitting an artifact.


----------



## FrankTrollman

cedric said:
			
		

> 1. Don't keep all of your eggs in one basket, have backup gear. Sure, it won't be as good as your main gear, but it'll be good.



If we use the "expected wealth per level" guidelines - that's impossible. At 17th level you have 340,000 gp worth of equipment. That's a lot, but it doesn't quite pay for 17th level equipment in all of your slots to begin with.

The supposed wealth levels _are_ really low compared to what PCs can actually do. But MDJ is designed based upon the idea that they will be used. _If_ we use those guidelines, _then_ keeping back-up equipment is simply not an option.



> 2. Make sure your character is more than just a moving collection of equipment. Give him/her enough depth and personality to transcend whatever may be in the backpack.




I'm lost. How does this help you kill a shadow?



> 3. Come better prepared. At those levels there are ample divination spells and abilities to collect information. If you find that the opponent you face has or may have a particularly devistating attack form or spell, find a way to neutralize or find a different opponent.




That won't work either. At 17th level, _all_ of your enemies can do this sort of thing. Furthermore, any Wizard who can cast MDJ can _also_ cast Mindblank (it's even the same school). Played at all intelligently, you _can't_ gain information from divination spells.

-Frank


----------



## WingOver

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> That won't work either. At 17th level, _all_ of your enemies can do this sort of thing. Furthermore, any Wizard who can cast MDJ can _also_ cast Mindblank (it's even the same school). Played at all intelligently, you _can't_ gain information from divination spells.




Sure you could... use mundane methods like Gather Information.  
Magically, you could scry on his henchmen.  And as a last and very powerful resort, you could use Greater Arcane Sight and just look at him (regardless of Mind Blank).  That doesn't really count as "come better prepared", but it'll do in a pinch.


----------



## Victim

There are no countermeasures to MD.  At least not any that don't cripple a character like always using your to counterspell just in case.  The same divination spells that allow PCs to know who to avoid because they have MD also allow vile enemies to track down PCs and ruin their precious stuff.  And having lots depth and personality isn't all that great if you can't do anything.

Disjuction would be broken even if it didn't knock out items.  Say good bye to all the defenses needed to keep the uber-bad (or high level wizard) alive.


----------



## Celtavian

*re*

I generally assume this spell is a "last measure". It will not be used unless a caster has absolutely no choice but to unleash it. The magic item destruction is just too much.

I almost see the mage's in the fantasy world thinking the same way as Player's: "It is powerful, but to use it is to invite its use. There is an unspoken agreement to not use this spell."


----------



## Cedric

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> If we use the "expected wealth per level" guidelines - that's impossible. At 17th level you have 340,000 gp worth of equipment. That's a lot, but it doesn't quite pay for 17th level equipment in all of your slots to begin with.
> 
> The supposed wealth levels _are_ really low compared to what PCs can actually do. But MDJ is designed based upon the idea that they will be used. _If_ we use those guidelines, _then_ keeping back-up equipment is simply not an option.




Even if you consider 25,000 for +5 armor and roughly 100,000 for a cumulative +7 weapon, that still leaves you with having spent only 1/3rd of your wealth. If you set aside 1/3 for "backup gear" and spend the other 1/3rd on utility items (haversack, rings, shields, etc). You could be well equipped and still have some reserve items. 

I'm not saying you are...but maybe you've set your sights too high for what "properly equipped" really is. 



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> I'm lost. How does this help you kill a shadow?




My point about placing more emphasis on the character than the stats had nothing to do with killing a shadow. It had much more to do with thinking of your character as being more important than the items he carries. Value the character, not the stuff. 



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> That won't work either. At 17th level, _all_ of your enemies can do this sort of thing. Furthermore, any Wizard who can cast MDJ can _also_ cast Mindblank (it's even the same school). Played at all intelligently, you _can't_ gain information from divination spells.
> 
> -Frank




Like WingOver suggested, gather your information by non-magic means. Or, understanding roughly what the npc is capable of, make arrangements to combat him on that basis. 

If you find that at 17th level you just cannot handle npc's capable of doing those things...avoid them. 

Cedric


----------



## hong

I just banned the spell, along with (nearly) all 9th level spells. Too much hassle to sort through them individually just to find the handful that aren't broken.


----------



## green slime

Tiberius said:
			
		

> In the last campaign I played in, I was planning to make Disjunction my lead-off spell for any given battle, once we reached those levels.  Too bad the game ended when we were 3rd level or so.
> 
> I don't really see it as a problem.  Sure, you nuke their stuff.  That just means that the take the now-"merely"-masterwork items and go bully CR 1-5 creatures for their loot for a few in-game months.  Slaughtering tribes of evil humanoids would be easy for characters of those levels, and very profitable.
> 
> -Tiberius




You cannot be serious about it being very profitable at that level... And what an extremely tedious game... You think it is going to be fun to chase down thousands of CR1-CR5 creatures, for which you gain no XP, and only a few gold per creature, session after session? Thank goodness none of my players have similar ideas...


----------



## Cedric

Victim said:
			
		

> There are no countermeasures to MD.  At least not any that don't cripple a character like always using your to counterspell just in case.  The same divination spells that allow PCs to know who to avoid because they have MD also allow vile enemies to track down PCs and ruin their precious stuff.  And having lots depth and personality isn't all that great if you can't do anything.
> 
> Disjuction would be broken even if it didn't knock out items.  Say good bye to all the defenses needed to keep the uber-bad (or high level wizard) alive.





No countermeasures? 

It's a close range interruptable spell...

Fight from further back, it's a close range spell, don't get in close range. or, 

Cast anti-magic shell on the Barbarian and have him wade into the caster, the chance of blowing away the anti-magic shell is small and you better believe that the wizard will NOT like standing toe to toe with a Barbarian in an anti-magic shell. or, 

Hit the caster with a maze, then surround the spot he was on, when he pops back in, waylay the crap out of him. Make sure at least two people surrounding him who are ONLY readying an action to disrupt casting, while the others pound on him. or, 

Have your cleric load up on self-combat buffs, then wade in with his VERY nice Will Save to pound on the caster. or, 

Have your own Arcane caster prepare MDJ and ready an action each round to counterspell MDJ. or, 

Bust out the Diplomacy skill and convince him that casting something that nasty would be a bad idea, also discouraging disintegrate's and the like. or, 

Ready an action to hide behind your Cube of Force, blocking Magic. MDJ is not in the list of items that affect the cube, I'd rule it doesn't work against it, cause it can't get through the screen the cube put up. (I would also rule that it drops the screen, but doesn't get beyond it). That's a gm call though. or, 

Find out what he wants the most, dress up an item to look like it, claim you have it, then stick together. or, 

Give the hasted monk an item of Silence 15' radius and have him dog the caster's every steps, not letting him cast anything but silenced spells.

Will each of these work? Probably not every time, but each of them (depending on your gm and how he plays certain things) has a chance of working. 

There are reasonable countermeasures to every situation within reason. 

Cedric


----------



## S'mon

orangefruitbat said:
			
		

> PCs don't use it very often, because they want all the magical loot.
> 
> NPCs presumably are thinking the same. So, presumably the NPC wizards want to get their grubby little hands on all those scrolls, potions, wands, etc. that are currently in the hands of the players.
> 
> About the only time I would see a wizard using this spell against PCs is if he has nothing left to lose - "You may have won, you stupid do-gooders, but one more step and I'll nuke ALL your magic items! I mean it". Could be an interesting situation.
> 
> Monsters that don't use magic items but have it as a spell-like ability could be brutal - but I can't think of any creatures that have this SA.




I agree with this 100%.  It's a self-limiting spell: if you use it and you win, you've lost most of the loot.  The only time NPCs will use it IMO is if 

1.. They're going to lose anyway - in which case most would rather take the action to teleport away 

2. The PCs have some ultra-powerful magic (maybe artifacts), destroying it is a goal in itself.

If PCs are likely to face MDs, a smart move is to leave a decent amount of magic equipment back at base.  If it's enough to re-equip themselves as an NPC of equivalent level would be, they should be able to deal with most threats ok.  A very kind DM could always use weaker NPCs with more gear for awhile after that.


----------



## Storminator

Cedric said:
			
		

> Three things...
> 
> 1. Don't keep all of your eggs in one basket, have backup gear. Sure, it won't be as good as your main gear, but it'll be good.




My character has no where to put back up gear. If I had any, it would be on my person. In last weeks session, in fact, some one asked if I wanted a house. I looked at him strangely and said, "I don't even have pockets, why would I want a house?" So that wouldn't help.



> 2. Make sure your character is more than just a moving collection of equipment. Give him/her enough depth and personality to transcend whatever may be in the backpack.




That's great, but when you're saving the world, that sparkling personality is only so handy. I need to hit an AC 40, I need to avoid a +32 attack, and I need to do it a bunch of times in a row, or half the continent dies. Oh yeah, and I need to avoid MDJ. 



> 3. Come better prepared. At those levels there are ample divination spells and abilities to collect information. If you find that the opponent you face has or may have a particularly devistating attack form or spell, find a way to neutralize or find a different opponent.




And sometimes it doesn't really help to know your foe is devastating. You simply have to get after him anyway. Should I have worried about the MD, the Miracle spell, Harm, Energy Drain, his vampiric dominate power, or his life stealing, energy draining, elf-bane sword? Didn't matter, I had to attack. 



> At any level of the game, 1st - whatever...there should be risk. Risk of death, risk of character loss, risk of equipment loss. It's a life threatening adventure, not an extended shopping trip.
> 
> Cedric




There's a difference between risk, ie the possibility you'll lose, and the near total certainty that your character will no longer add value to the group. That's where you go when you're a 17th level character equiped like a poorly planned 3rd level PC. You simply become unplayable.

PS


----------



## Storminator

S'mon said:
			
		

> I agree with this 100%.  It's a self-limiting spell: if you use it and you win, you've lost most of the loot.  The only time NPCs will use it IMO is if
> 
> 1.. They're going to lose anyway - in which case most would rather take the action to teleport away
> 
> 2. The PCs have some ultra-powerful magic (maybe artifacts), destroying it is a goal in itself.
> 
> If PCs are likely to face MDs, a smart move is to leave a decent amount of magic equipment back at base.  If it's enough to re-equip themselves as an NPC of equivalent level would be, they should be able to deal with most threats ok.  A very kind DM could always use weaker NPCs with more gear for awhile after that.




The last few foes we've fought have all been equiped with evil equipment, lich armor, black robes of the archmage, elf-bane swords, etc. There would be no loss to us if all that got disjoined. Similarly, our foes aren't salavating at the idea of looting our bodies, they just want us dead. MDJs fly.

PS


----------



## Stalker0

From most of the posts I've seen basically people's answers to it are:

1) The MAD approach.
2) Backup Gear approach
3) Ban it or lower the spell effect.

MAD doesn't work the same reason antimagic often doesn't work, its assuming the NPC's and the PC's are in the same boat, relying on magic items, and that's very much not true. Let's say I got a 20th level party against a Balor and his high evil priest of some dark god (and it doesn't have to be a balor, pick something less if you'd like).

Priest casts MDJ, and let's say the Balor and the party lose all their magic. So now you got a Balor fighting a bunch of 20th level gimp elves, humans, and dwarves. So... let me know how that turns out

The backup gear approach, means your intentionally limiting your own power to be prepared for something that might happen. Now that's a powerful spell, I've nerfed the party and I didn't even have to do anything!! But even if you do go the backup gear route, that's assuming you can get to it. Go back to the Mr. Balor situation, and remember you still have to survive him before you get to go get that backup gear.. and I doubt that gear is going to help you much against him.

Banning it or lowering is a "good" way to fix it as it actually does fix it. However, I really don't like changing spells just because its broken, I like coming up with roleplay reasons. NPCs not MDJ because they don't want to kill off PC items work alright for some encounters, but there are going to be encounters where the NPCs just don't care, they much rather see the PC's dead and gone even if it means losing some of their magic, and hell, they'll still get lots of magic (MDJ won't likely destroy everything).


----------



## kmdietri

If this has been clarified somewhere else ignore it.  

But in the first paragraph is says:

"That is, spells and spell-like effects are seperated into their individual components (ending the effect as a dispel magic does), and each permanent magic must make a successful Will save or be turned into a normal item."

The portion in that says:  (ending the effect as a dispel magic does), suggests to me that there needs to be a dispel check versus all the spell and spell-like effects it has a chance to disjoin.

Of course that's just my interpretation and may be way off.


----------



## Artoomis

kmdietri:

I hadn't considered that interpretation.  I don't _think[/] that's what they meant - I think they the effect is the same as if the spells were dispelled._


----------



## FrankTrollman

It ends it as a Dispel Magic does. Not as a Dispel Magic has a chance to do.

If a Dispel Magic succeeds, the spell is ended, otherwise it is not ended. Thus, MDJ is just like a Dispel that _succeeds_ - so no Caster Level Tjeck is actually necessary.

-Frank


----------



## Norfleet

You know, in ages past, Mord's Disjunction was never this bad, and it more or less did the same thing. What this is saying is that, quite plainly, 3E has become overly dependent on items: A high-level character is nearly useless unless he's kitted out like a Diablo II character, who's similarly useless without a buttload of crap. Something has obviously gone wrong with the concept when an entire party can be rendered totally useless by the magical equivalent of an EMP.


----------



## Plane Sailing

It seems to me that the big problem with MD is that there is no easy way of recovering from it. Strange that, you can kill someone with Weird or Banshee or whatever and you can have them resurrected in a jiffy with a lower level spell or resurrected completely unharmed with a 9th level spell.

Where are the remedies for MD?

Doesn't it seem strange to have a game where having your stuff(tm) destroyed is worse news than being killed   

I think that by the time PC's get high enough level for this to be an issue in my campaign I'll have decided to nerf the spell so that it suppresses magic items for 1 round per caster level. That will probably finish the combat there and then, but it at least gives the PC's the opportunity to run and hide while waiting for their items to come back. Could be some excitement there.

The other thing is to consider countermeasures. Obviously wish and miracle could be ruled to negate the spell, but it is a tremendous cost for wizards (probably nothing for clerics though   ). I might even go as far as allowing Limited Wish to negate the spell - it would cost the caster 300xp but still might be too cheap a cost to rescue magic items from the spell.

I'm pretty sure that I'll change it to a suppression spell. It seems a shame to me that character wealth is now tied so closely to character level, because (as has been pointed out here and elsewhere numerous times) a high level PC can't really survive without his wealth. I find it somewhat ironic that while 3e gave the PC's many more capabilities in themselves (feats, skills) it eventually leaves them even more a hostage to magic items than in previous versions!

Cheers


----------



## FrankTrollman

You know, just a big Anti-magic Field with a range of Close instead of Personal would be plenty good enough for a 9th level spell. Indeed, the only real problem with the spell is the fact that there is no way to recover from it.

---

However, there is a whole other use of the spell which is as a plot device. Need to destroy the Doom Finger? Disjoin it, the Mordenkainen way!

That's a useful enough plot point that it should probably still be around. Thus, just like Dispel Magic it should have two versions:

*Area Disjunction:* As _antimagic field_ except for area and range.

*Targetted Disjunction:* Permanently destroys _one_ magic item. Artifacts and attended items get a saving throw.

Preserves the plot reasons for the spell (either to make a tough, magic-less combat or to destroy a major story item) - while getting rid of the game balance issues with extended play.

I would play with that version.

-Frank


----------



## Cedric

If you are not going to accept any of the numerous suggestions I made for how to deal MDJ and you are just going to continue pointing out how hard it is on your gear, which is the only thing you ultimately care about on your character sheet, maybe you should either stick to characters with a really good Will save or just flat play a different game. 

Once all the challenge is gone, what's the fun of playing D&D at all? Diablo ceased being fun for me, when I could leave my character in the Hell levels fighting, while I went to the kitchen for a sandwhich. 

Is that the same thing you want from D&D? If so, make liberal use of house rules. You can change anything with a house rule. And if your GM won't house rule it, get a new GM who will make it easy for you. 

Cedric


----------



## TuDogz

As a Player (and my group seems to behave the same way), I am too damn GREEDY to be Disjoining my loot.  You don't get to the levels where you can cast MD withoout having a fine sense of the value of magic items and how they power your lifestyle.

As a DM, I don't allow MD to affect artifacts at all.  Period.  

I can just see poor Sauron...

"Finally!!!",  cries Sauron raising his fist above his head.  He raises his voice to the heavens and shouts "ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL.  ONE RING TO BIND THEM.  ONE RING TO...."

tap tap tap....        tap tap tap...

"...what the F..."


As far as using it against magic items, I figure that any NPCs that have it are powerful enough to have good loot.  I generally make sure that if the party beats the encounter they gain enough to offset some of the loss.  I do that because the game is pointless without player enjoyment.  I do not use it often since most NPCs have the same financial sensibilities as the PCs.  Like anything in the game use it too much or without considering the ramifactions to campaign and it can wreck your game.  It is a tool.  Sometimes you need a backhoe, sometimes a shovel works just fine.

It also depends on what kind of campaign you run.  If you are a module-type DM, disjunction would probably wreck the game every time.  I haven't played a pre-written module since 2E and could modify the encounters following the MD to bring things back into balance if it got too wonky.


----------



## Victim

Norfleet said:
			
		

> You know, in ages past, Mord's Disjunction was never this bad, and it more or less did the same thing. What this is saying is that, quite plainly, 3E has become overly dependent on items: A high-level character is nearly useless unless he's kitted out like a Diablo II character, who's similarly useless without a buttload of crap. Something has obviously gone wrong with the concept when an entire party can be rendered totally useless by the magical equivalent of an EMP.





While I'd agree that Disjunction was probably less effective in 2e, I think you have the wrong reasons.

Let's face it, against all the monsters that require +1 or better weapons to hurt (like many high level monsters), a fighter was just a bag of HP without a magic weapon.  Just like a 3e fighter - well the 3e fighter will probably lose his HP much faster if lacking magic stuff.

But look at the saving throws.  A 2e fighter needs a 6 to save normally, and will probably have a ring of protection or similar item to boost his save.  On the other hand, a 3e fighter might be looking at 50/50 shot after his save boosters are taken into account.  Consider the difference between losing half your stuff, and losing one tenth.  Hmm, MD just became 5 times more powerful.


----------



## FrankTrollman

Actually, in ages past you could hurt monsters with +X or better weapon to hit if you had enough _hit dice_. So a powerful Fighter could penetrate "DR" or "incorporeality" with a teddy bear on a stick.

It was in many ways less realistic, but it meant that a Fighter could roll out of bed naked and have a chance to defeat a Spectre. And thus, MDJ really didn't matter.

---

Another difference, of course, was that there were no item creation rules that made any sense. In 3e and 3.5, when you gain magic items you can't use, you don't put them in glass case in the bat cave - you melt them down for power. In AD&D, there was _nothing you could do_ with "another +2 sword". Thus, you actually had a big pile of +2 swords, and you left stockpiles of them around your house. Getting hit by a MDJ just made you go home and pick up your third best sword.

In 3rd edition, if you get enough +2 swords (five, in fact) you can melt them into a +3 sword, and so on. Thus, not only are those "lesser" magic items a lot more useful for you - the game expects you to have a lot less of them.

---

In total, in AD&D you were expected to have back-up magic weapons at home and even if you didn't you could still punch out a pit fiend if you were high enough level for Disjunction to be an issue. In 3e, those genre tropes of giant piles of gold and stacks of magic items have been removed in order to make a wealth-dependent magic item creation system (questionably) workable.

And it has changed MDJ from just a cool story spell to a campaign ending catastrophe.

-Frank


----------



## Hypersmurf

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> In 3rd edition, if you get enough +2 swords (five, in fact) you can melt them into a +3 sword, and so on.




Uh... do you mean by selling four of them?

-Hyp.


----------



## Storminator

Cedric said:
			
		

> If you are not going to accept any of the numerous suggestions I made for how to deal MDJ and you are just going to continue pointing out how hard it is on your gear, which is the only thing you ultimately care about on your character sheet, maybe you should either stick to characters with a really good Will save or just flat play a different game.




If you aren't going to accept that none of your less than stellar suggestions will work for my character, you should probably stop responding to my posts. And perhaps you should pull back from making snide and asinine comments like this one: 







> which is the only thing you ultimately care about on your character sheet...



 It's funny how when the discussion is specifically about gear, I tend to focus on gear. Isn't that strange?



> Once all the challenge is gone, what's the fun of playing D&D at all? Diablo ceased being fun for me, when I could leave my character in the Hell levels fighting, while I went to the kitchen for a sandwhich.




Maybe you should actually read what I wrote. The challenge has NOT gone out of my game. In fact the important issue here is that my game is so difficult that I am hard pressed to survive with all my gear intact. Without it, I might as well play a 1 HD orc, because I've got as much chance of effecting the outcome of events.



> Is that the same thing you want from D&D? If so, make liberal use of house rules. You can change anything with a house rule. And if your GM won't house rule it, get a new GM who will make it easy for you.
> 
> Cedric




Here's what I don't want from D&D: I full round attack... miss, miss, miss, miss, miss. His turn... hit, hit, crit, hit, I'm dead. Wasn't that fun? Oh wait, I can try this tactic: I run from everyone, I hide in the tree, I hope my friends save me. That sounds like lots more fun.

Yeah we did make a house rule. MDJ suppresses magic items for one day per caster level. I spent three weeks (real time and game time by coincidence) without my gear. I got the fighter's extra gloves of dex, a back up ring of protection, and a rather powerful longsword. A weapon finessing monk with a freaking longsword. And spent a lot of time getting skweegeed up off the ground.

But if I had to do that (ie, feel worthless) for the rest of the campaign, I'd have to make a new character. 

PS


----------



## green slime

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Actually, in ages past you could hurt monsters with +X or better weapon to hit if you had enough _hit dice_. So a powerful Fighter could penetrate "DR" or "incorporeality" with a teddy bear on a stick.
> 
> It was in many ways less realistic, but it meant that a Fighter could roll out of bed naked and have a chance to defeat a Spectre. And thus, MDJ really didn't matter.




I recall in 1e that this was a note in the DMG that only applied to monsters, and NOT player characters.

So Whales could hurt spectres, but 20th level humans with teddy bears could not. Of course you may be talking about an even earlier edition


----------



## Hypersmurf

green slime said:
			
		

> I recall in 1e that this was a note in the DMG that only applied to monsters, and NOT player characters.




Yup.  The footnote reads: _* This does not apply to characters of any sort._

-Hyp.


----------



## Cedric

> Yeah we did make a house rule. MDJ suppresses magic items for one day per caster level.




Right there you have taken the biggest bite out of the spell. So what is the point of coming here to complain about it? None of us are going to be able to remove the spell from the game for you. 

I was trying to offer what I felt like were reasonable suggestions for how to combat the spell. I'm genuinely sorry that you found my advice offensive though. 

Cedric


----------



## Tywyll

I've houseruled MDJ for my games as such:

If used as a spread, it dispels all spells (as normal).  Magic items that fail their saves are supressed (I think its 1 hour/level).  This allows for those kind of games where you want to take a groups magic noo-nahs away without crippling them forever.

Now, like Dispel, you can target a single person.  In that case, if the items fail their save, they are destroyed.

Granted I know its still probably a world of pain, but at least the party can typically cover the guy for awhile (heck, with the propensity of buffing spells, if the fighter loses his armor and weapon the mage and cleric and rebuff his now normal gear to +4 each, +5 at 20th level... and that's not too shabby... at least he won't be /totally/ worthless).

I agree with the earlier post on why the system is so hard on characters... the selling and upgrading of magic items.  I have tried to break the players of that habit, and to my credit, I have a 17th level character running around with her first magic sword that she found in the game, back when she was 7th level).  Its been upgraded to flaming, but otherwise still just a +2 and typically her favorite weapon.  She has a few spare items, and she has sold some.  Most of the players in the group are like that.  They do some selling, but I try to make the reality of it more cosher... I don't see PCs willing to make many items for NPCs, due to XP loss, why would NPCS be any different?


----------



## S'mon

I can't understand why it's so impossible for high level PCs to leave some back-up gear at their base, or even money to buy new kit.  NPCs are supposed to be a fair challenge at level = party level (ie equal CR, roughly) despite having far less gear value at high levels.  A 20th level Fighter with 0gp of gear is seriously handicapped.  The way costs work,a 20th level Fighter with 220,000gp of gear instead of 760,000gp of gear ought to be perfectly viable IMO, I doubt his effective CR is more than 1 below his fully-equipped companions.  So his belt of giant strength is +4 (16,000gp) instead of +6 (36,000gp).  Don't break my heart.


----------



## Celtavian

*re*



			
				Norfleet said:
			
		

> You know, in ages past, Mord's Disjunction was never this bad, and it more or less did the same thing. What this is saying is that, quite plainly, 3E has become overly dependent on items: A high-level character is nearly useless unless he's kitted out like a Diablo II character, who's similarly useless without a buttload of crap. Something has obviously gone wrong with the concept when an entire party can be rendered totally useless by the magical equivalent of an EMP.




I hated this spell in 2e as well. Used it twice on my players, after that I stopped using it because I probably wouldn't have had a gaming group anymore. I'm really surprised Collin's didn't change this spell given that he often uses that a spell or ability isn't very fun to justify certain changes. 

This spell is not very fun. It would have been nice if it had been altered.


----------



## Artoomis

In the final, big battle, I had the big bad guy use this on my group.

The results were:

1 artifact destroyed, which caused an unhappy planetar to appear.

4 of 6 party members were caught in the area of effect.  2 lost NO items, 1 lost only minor items, one lost everything except his weapon.  As this was the big final battle, plenty of treasure (in the honer of speak like a pirate day, "there be treasure here- arrrh, matey") was avaible ro re-equip.

The big bag guy lost his spellcasting ability.

Overall?  Very cool - much fun and anguish, no long-term detrimental affect to anyone's character.  No one was upset. Everyone thought it was an appropriate thing to happen from a cornered big bad guy.


----------



## Storminator

Cedric said:
			
		

> Right there you have taken the biggest bite out of the spell. So what is the point of coming here to complain about it? None of us are going to be able to remove the spell from the game for you.
> 
> I was trying to offer what I felt like were reasonable suggestions for how to combat the spell. I'm genuinely sorry that you found my advice offensive though.
> 
> Cedric




Your advice wasn't offensive. It was of limited value. Your second post, however, can only be read as a deliberate insult. That's when I went from debating to slamming.

I am sorry, however, for the tone of my last post.

PS


----------



## CrimsonTemplar

It makes me cry...please don't cast it. <sniff>


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead

Artoomis said:
			
		

> In the final, big battle, I had the big bad guy use this on my group.
> 
> The results were:
> 
> 1 artifact destroyed, which caused an unhappy planetar to appear.
> 
> 4 of 6 party members were caught in the area of effect.  2 lost NO items, 1 lost only minor items, one lost everything except his weapon.  As this was the big final battle, plenty of treasure (in the honer of speak like a pirate day, "there be treasure here- arrrh, matey") was avaible ro re-equip.
> 
> The big bag guy lost his spellcasting ability.
> 
> Overal?  Very cool - much fun and anguish, no long-term detrimental affect to anyone's character.  No one was upset. Everyone thought it was an appropriate thing to happen from a cornered big bad guy.




I hope you realize artifacts have no place in a balance discussion. 

S'mon


> I can't understand why it's so impossible for high level PCs to leave some back-up gear at their base, or even money to buy new kit. NPCs are supposed to be a fair challenge at level = party level (ie equal CR, roughly) despite having far less gear value at high levels. A 20th level Fighter with 0gp of gear is seriously handicapped. The way costs work,a 20th level Fighter with 220,000gp of gear instead of 760,000gp of gear ought to be perfectly viable IMO, I doubt his effective CR is more than 1 below his fully-equipped companions. So his belt of giant strength is +4 (16,000gp) instead of +6 (36,000gp). Don't break my heart.




That's not how the CR system works - you will end up weaker, take more damage, inflict less damage, have fewer spells/day, etc. Sure, it would be nice if DnD weren't so item dependent, but now we have a spell that takes a weakness and makes it even worse. It's sort of like how the archmage and excessive multi-classing/PrCing broke the already weak saving throw system.


----------



## Artoomis

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> I hope you realize artifacts have no place in a balance discussion.




Au contraire.  Artifacts have _always _ been an important part of D&D.  Leaving them out of a discussion of a 9th level spell that is designed to affect them is, at the very least, odd.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Au contraire.  Artifacts have _always _ been an important part of D&D.  Leaving them out of a discussion of a 9th level spell that is designed to affect them is, at the very least, odd.




Artifacts don't come with costs or creation methods for a reason - they're introduced as _story_ elements, not _balance_ elements.

I'm sure 99% of artifacts costs over 200,000 gp, assuming it's possible to price them - the exception being Dwarven Glowstones, but since I've never seen that item I can't really comment on it.

A 20th-level NPC gets ~220,000 gp worth of gear. If he's carrying around an artifact that will be _all_ the gear he possesses.

PCs carrying artifacts is another story - I'd be more willing to allow them if they wouldn't backstab players, come with costs, a way to reliably Sunder them if they got out of control, etc etc.

MDj reminds me of Harm - neither is dependent on the victim's power at all. Harm ignored the victim's hp and saving throws - Harm ignores the victim's caster level as it strips off all of their spell. There's also no general counter to it - only specific counters.


----------



## Norfleet

Here's interesting Disjunction question: Characters are allowed to voluntarily fail saving throws. Can casters cast a spell in a manner such that everyone who does NOT voluntarily fail their saving throw automatically passes? The interesting thing about Disjunction is, if you're using it, that you want your opponents to actually PASS their saves, so you can still loot them. Could a caster deliberately not use his SF/GSF feats or his stat DC bonusses, or even intentionally reduce the DC of his spell so that anyone could pass the save?


----------



## Artoomis

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Artifacts don't come with costs or creation methods for a reason - they're introduced as _story_ elements, not _balance_ elements...




Nonetheless, how can you discuss the (un?)balanced nature of a spell while discounting one of it's primary functions and disadvantages (the chance of angering a greater being and of losing spell-casting abilities)??

In fact, it's pretty tough to discuss many 9th level spells as "balanced."  Many of them are designed to be used more as story-line items than routine spells.

That's certainly how I employed M's Disjunction last night.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Norfleet said:
			
		

> Could a caster deliberately not use his SF/GSF feats or his stat DC bonusses, or even intentionally reduce the DC of his spell so that anyone could pass the save?




Hrmm.

That's essentially the SR question.

If my friend with SR 10 is in melee with a bunch of opponents with no SR, can I drop a Fireball on top of them all, and deliberately fail my caster level check to beat the SR?

I'd say definitely not.

But can I deliberately _not_ use my Spell Penetration feat?

Well, now, that's a tougher question 

-Hyp.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Cedric said:
			
		

> No countermeasures?
> 
> Cast anti-magic shell on the Barbarian and have him wade into the caster, the chance of blowing away the anti-magic shell is small and you better believe that the wizard will NOT like standing toe to toe with a Barbarian in an anti-magic shell. or,




Unfortunately anti-magic field is a personal spell... you can't cast it on anyone else.

I'd say that the rest of your ideas are tactics rather than countermeasures... i.e. generally useful things to do when fighting powerful wizards. A countermeasure would really be something deliberately designed to protect against a specific thing - e.g. death ward is a countermeasure against death spells, protection from fire is a countermeasure against fire spells, mind blank is a countermeasure against discern location etc. A specific defence which trumps a specific action being taken against you.

Cheers


----------



## Thanee

Have seen it only once so far (as part of a trap). The fighters lost most of their valuable equipment (including an artifact weapon), while the cleric and wizard lost only very few items, because of their much better Will saves!

_How to deal with Mordenkainen's Disjunction?_

As a PC...

First of all, having a good Will save definitely helps with those magic item saving throws! 

Then carrying backup gear in an extradimensional space is also a good idea to be able to quickly recover!

I also had the idea to build an item, that triggers an Antimagic Field via Contingency whenever a Mordenkainen's Disjunction is cast around it.

Yes, it can hurt and especially removing all the buffs can be nasty under the right circumstances, but then again, 9th level spells usually _are_ nasty.

As a DM...

Use it rarely if ever! 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Hypersmurf

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Unfortunately anti-magic field is a personal spell... you can't cast it on anyone else.




Then use a Ring of Spell Storing, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry...

-Hyp.


----------



## Thanee

MoF has a 7th level Antimagic Field (slightly different name), which is not personal, btw!

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Ridley's Cohort

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Doesn't it seem strange to have a game where having your stuff(tm) destroyed is worse news than being killed




A bit of aside, my experience is that this was even a bigger problem in 1e/2e because:

(1) The slowing rate of levelling at the high single digits meant that by the book experience awards were inadequate to motivate a remotely sane PC.  Therefore DM had to appeal to greed (or weave a fabulously intriguing story).  The result tended to be PCs whose class abilities paled in comparison with power of their stuff.

(2) Lacking feats in the game system meant that two similar characters concepts would be functionally identical, save for equipment.  If my fighter loses his equipment, your fighter can do absolutely everything I can do, except better, in detail.

In 3e/3.5, if I lose everything I still probably have a functional character with mostly the same peculiarities and weaknesses.  The character is still the same character, albeit weaker.  Not so in 1e/2e.


----------



## Cedric

> I'd say that the rest of your ideas are tactics rather than countermeasures...




You can argue semantics with me if you want...but the end result is the same. There are a number of things that a skilled group of players can do to prepare themselves for a specific tactic. The honest truth is that I have never worried about MDJ, and I never will. 

This game seems to have become so watered down (nerfs to harm, disintegrate and numerous other spells), that I no longer fear much of anything. (Dragons being a big exception...always worry about Dragons!).



> A 20th-level NPC gets ~220,000 gp worth of gear. If he's carrying around an artifact that will be all the gear he possesses.




Feel free to adjust the NPCs CR for the amount of gear he is actually carrying. 

Cedric


----------



## Cedric

I really hate to sound like I'm doing a "Back in my day" speech...but anyone who finds D&D hard now, should bust out 1st edition and try running through Tomb of Horrors with a "by the book" GM. 

Cedric


----------



## Bauglir

I don't want to offend any 1e fans but I really did not see the appeal in being arbitrarily killed off in every room of a dungeon.  Many Tomb of Horrors traps just killed off PCs with no warning and no chance to escape - that's not challenging, it's impossible.

3.xe is challenging, it's just gives the PCs a reasonable chance to overcome those challenges using their abilities.


----------



## frankthedm

I removced it from the wizard / sorcerer list and left it only in the magic domain for my own game. So at least its only in the hands of the clergy of Marduk [city and pure incantation], Oberon [Fae dealings and all that] and Tawil at Umar [ magic, dimensions, and some other _things_].

At that level of play having EVERYTHING on you at one time should be discouraged.  3.5 went way too far to protect your items, If you are disintegrated IMNSHO there should be nothing left but dust [...ok, ok 50% chance for your boots to remain ]


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Nonetheless, how can you discuss the (un?)balanced nature of a spell while discounting one of it's primary functions and disadvantages (the chance of angering a greater being and of losing spell-casting abilities)??
> 
> In fact, it's pretty tough to discuss many 9th level spells as "balanced."  Many of them are designed to be used more as story-line items than routine spells.
> 
> That's certainly how I employed M's Disjunction last night.




IME artifacts don't crop up that often, and no player deliberately destroys an artifact, assuming they can even identify it as such.

It's also not really a disadvantage - how often do you run into someone carrying an artifact? Even in FR it's extremely rare.

I see what you mean about 9th-level spells ... many of them aren't balanced. Many of the ones that are now balanced are no longer 9th-levle, like Temporal Stasis. (Toss out the material component and it's ok IMO.)


----------



## Plane Sailing

Cedric said:
			
		

> You can argue semantics with me if you want...




Not interested in semantics thanks, but you stopped quoting me before my elucidation of the difference between what you offerered and what is missing wrt MD. You provided some generic tactics which are fine, but nothing which is a specific stop to MD.

That is probably why you didn't get much of a response to your list of suggested tactics.

Cheers


----------



## Thanee

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I removed it from the wizard / sorcerer list and left it only in the magic domain for my own game.




So clerics get it and wizards don't, altho it's a spell created by a wizard and surely anti-magic is more a realm of wizards than clerics?

But if it works for your game, that's cool of course! 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## FrankTrollman

Also remember that the "permanent" loss of all magical power isn't all that, well, _permanent_. The way D&D handles classes is that getting a new level of Wizard _overwrites_ your previous level - just as getting a +3 enhancement on oyur sword supercedes a +2 enhancement on the same.

So if a 17th level Wizard loses all of his magical abilities - all he has to do is take a single level of Wizard and he has all of the magical abilities of an 18th level Wizard. MDJ does not prevent you from gaining new levels of Wizard - and 18th level doesn't give you +1 9th level spell - it gives _two 9th level spells_.

So while MDJ can end up with a powerful wizard running around as a commoner for a while - it ends as soon as he gets 17,000 XP in a pile - so it's not that much of a deterent.

-Frank


----------



## BVB

_BVB said: So you get hit by MD -- big deal. Either you're in the same straits now as your enemy and you fight it out like real men, or he's still too tough and you run away to fight another day._



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> The problem with this line of reasoning is Shadows.
> 
> As simple CR 3 Shadow is only harmed by magic weapons and spells.
> 
> That means that without a magic weapon ...




No problem there, Mr. TROLLman. It falls under the latter choice in my solution: _RUN AWAY._


----------



## FrankTrollman

I've got an even better idea... how about we just have a pissing contest to see who can make the most humerous acronym out of other peoples' names.

-Frank


----------



## Squire James

I just got here, so I'll state my opinion and let it sit.

Mord's Disjunction has two problems that can potentially wreck a campaign.  First, there's the obvious item-drain problem.  Second, the spell totally destroys the idea that artifacts are hard to get rid of.  Why bathe the Grand Gadget of Evil in the hearts-blood of a devil more powerful than Asmodeus if you can just put it into a suitably open space and cast MJ over and over again until it works (trusting the dice not to roll a 1 on that Will save)?

In addition to that, it has one problem that makes it unbalancing in the short term, too... namely its use as an automatic Dispel Magic.

The easy thing to do is to simply forbid the spell... Miracle makes a great replacement for it in any domain that might have it... pretty bad when a spell's less balanced than Wish, huh?

The more difficult path is to nerf the spell in such a way that it still makes a good level 9 spell:

1.  I would limit the artifact-destruction effects to minor artifacts, and major artifacts that could be replaced by someone over time.  Yeah, you can destroy Thor's hammer Mjolnir, but Odin will just have another one made sooner or later.  Irreplaceable artifacts are assumed to beyond mortal magic, even if that mortal is Mordenkainen.

2.  Magic items gain a Will save based on the item's caster level - the maker of the item had good Will saves and so will the item.  Assume the caster's saves are similar to a PC wizard's or cleric's Will save if the item if the caster level of the item is similar.

3.  The magic dispelling effect acts as a targetted Greater Dispel (with a dispel check cap of +25) were cast on everyone in the area.  In my opinion, this still makes the spell well worth a level 9 slot considering this ability alone!


----------



## Cedric

> Also remember that the "permanent" loss of all magical power isn't all that, well, permanent. The way D&D handles classes is that getting a new level of Wizard overwrites your previous level - just as getting a +3 enhancement on oyur sword supercedes a +2 enhancement on the same.
> 
> So if a 17th level Wizard loses all of his magical abilities - all he has to do is take a single level of Wizard and he has all of the magical abilities of an 18th level Wizard. MDJ does not prevent you from gaining new levels of Wizard - and 18th level doesn't give you +1 9th level spell - it gives two 9th level spells.
> 
> So while MDJ can end up with a powerful wizard running around as a commoner for a while - it ends as soon as he gets 17,000 XP in a pile - so it's not that much of a deterent.




I can't imagine a GM would actually play it this way. Especially when the spell description clearly states that restoring your magical ability is beyond even the powers of a Wish or Miracle spell. 

I think reading the rules to mean that taking one level of wizard restores all of your casting ability (when lost in this manner) is a gross misinterpretation of the rules. 



> Second, the spell totally destroys the idea that artifacts are hard to get rid of. Why bathe the Grand Gadget of Evil in the hearts-blood of a devil more powerful than Asmodeus if you can just put it into a suitably open space and cast MJ over and over again until it works (trusting the dice not to roll a 1 on that Will save)?




Considering a DC 25 Will save to avoid losing all casting abilities permanently (you can always roll a 1) and considering a 95% chance that a deity or powerful representatives of a deity (can you say Solar, I knew you could) may take notice and offense to this...means that any caster willing to cast MD on artifacts hoping to destroy them is a complete idiot. 

If I were able to cast MD and I knew you had an artifact...I would specifically not use the spell, no matter how much it might benefit me otherwise. 



> You provided some generic tactics which are fine, but nothing which is a specific stop to MD.




Readying your own MD to counterspell it doesn't count as a means to specifically stop it? 

I find D&D to be a good game, capable of great adventures. But in all great adventures, there is a chance of failure. It is up to you to develop the right plan and the right tactics to not fail. If you think a caster wielding MD is too hard...go tackle an Ancient Dragon...you might develop a new definition of hard.

Cedric


----------



## FrankTrollman

> Readying your own MD to counterspell it doesn't count as a means to specifically stop it?




Not when readying your own Meteor Swarm would stop them from casting _any_ spell. Even Epic Level characters and monsters cannot make the DC 103 Concentration Check required to cast a spell while being hit with a meteror swarm (assuming that they make all of their saves and have evasion).

Saying "if you win initiative and have a 9th level spell, you can stop them from casting it" is meaningless - you could put them in a Force Cage or any of a number of other things. If you win initiative and cast a 9th level spell - they are probably going to be out more than a turn. Counterspelling is weak likea  ninja, and suggesting it as a tactic is a cruel hoax.

-Frank


----------



## isoChron

It may be nice for you guys to have a backup equipment somewhere but :
What if the total character gold is at half of the proposed already? In our campaign the best equiped character is at 60% of what is proposed as starting gold in the DMG.

So now you still have to get enough money to assemble a backup equipment just for the case ...
And where do you store it ? Bag of holding ? Bad idea if it is caught in MD. Stronghold ? OK. Nice. 
But do you know how much a stronghold costs without any protection against enemies (who will steal your last bread when you are not at home).

The cat bites its own tail. The more you want to store somewhere, the better it must be protected, the more it costs, the less you can afford.

Face it, D&D is a game that strongly relies on equipment. Clerics can compensate some of that need with spells (dispel magic anyone?) but to support a group of six with one cleric is hard. 
Now for a party without a cleric ....

A level 17 group with a fighter without any magical equipment is not really able to survive the first fight. The monsters have an insane high Attack and the AC of your armor is max 23 without magic.

CR are given for a fully equiped party with all spellslots available and full HP. I don't know what the challenge rating for monsters would look like without any magic items for the party.

The single effect of MD, the dipelling of all spells in the area, is a very good spell taken on it's own. Now if you destroy 50% of the items of the enemy with it this gets a great spell. 
Errr, and I don't know how many artifacts you see in your campaign, but artifacts are VERY rare. I have seen two in 5 years. And it was pretty clear there is an artifact so no one would ever use a MD on it.

I'm aware that high level gaming is always a risk for the character but it should be fun to play. I for my part have no fun running around for (game-)weeks only to get a part of my equipment back. Until the next mad evil wizard throws another MD at the party. If I let my character die I can be back at full in a second with a new one. But I like my characters and what they experienced. I want to play them and develop their characteristics. 

BYE


----------



## Cedric

It's obvious I have nothing further to contribute to this conversation...so I'll stop trying after this post. I just wanted to leave you with one last thought...

The things that you complain about being too hard to counter...those are things that have never worried me or my characters, because I have always been prepared for them. 

It's up to you whether you should re-think your tactics, or just continue to complain about the things you've convinced yourself you can't beat. 

Cedric


----------



## Bauglir

Just a thought.  If you have a set of backup equipment ready to go and your main eq. gets wiped out by MDJ, what's to stop the very same thing happening to your backup set the next day?

And then what do you do?


----------



## S'mon

Bauglir said:
			
		

> Just a thought.  If you have a set of backup equipment ready to go and your main eq. gets wiped out by MDJ, what's to stop the very same thing happening to your backup set the next day?
> 
> And then what do you do?




I guess you're screwed.  

I've always tried to avoid the excessive equipment-dependence of 3e.  Characters who are underequipped as a result of MD or otherwise can always seek out easier challenges - they'll advance more slowly, but I don't see a problem with taking 6-8 sessions to level instead of 3-4, especially if the PCs are already level 17 or so.  I guess in a Monte Cook-style campaign where everything is carefully balanced to the party's capabilities & there's no slack, maybe MD needs to be nerfed.  In a more traditional campaign it's just part of high-level life. 

As I said earlier, having 1/2 book-standard gear by value doesn't make you half as effective - for a Fighter they're probably about 80% as effective, most other classes even moreso.


----------



## Darklone

Thanee said:
			
		

> _How to deal with Mordenkainen's Disjunction?_
> 
> As a PC...
> 
> First of all, having a good Will save definitely helps with those magic item saving throws!
> 
> Then carrying backup gear in an extradimensional space is also a good idea to be able to quickly recover!




Uhm extradimensional space? How do you access it, btw, what kind of extradimensional thing is not destroyed by a MD? Bag of Holding should be gone...


----------



## Norfleet

Cedric said:
			
		

> Considering a DC 25 Will save to avoid losing all casting abilities permanently (you can always roll a 1) and considering a 95% chance that a deity or powerful representatives of a deity (can you say Solar, I knew you could) may take notice and offense to this...means that any caster willing to cast MD on artifacts hoping to destroy them is a complete idiot.



If you're attempting to destroy the Gadget of Ultimate Evil, I don't think that anyone who's opinion you'd actually care about would bother you. That Solar isn't going to mind that you've decided to sack the Gadget of Ultimate Evil, he's on your side. Some demon, on the other hand, might get annoyed, but he hates you anyway, so it's not like anything changes.


----------



## frankthedm

Thanee said:
			
		

> So clerics get it and wizards don't, altho it's a spell created by a wizard and surely anti-magic is more a realm of wizards than clerics?
> 
> But if it works for your game, that's cool of course!
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




The world i am using never had those supermages, so spells named for specific them were never created in the first place. and so they are not automaticly in my game [and having books from all editions, i do know which is which] There are usually divine equivalances, so yes the ones answering directly to gods of magic are the ones best suited to be causing magical EMP's. Some spells are reintroduced under new names for wizard / sorcerers when need be. _Yig's acidic spittle_ [ melfs acid arrow] as an example.


----------



## Cedric

Others may disagree, but I think Leomund's Secret Chest would be unaffected by an MD..both of the chests are non-magical. And while the ability to recall the chests is magical, I would not consider it a continuing affect...

Cedric


----------



## LGodamus

My Npc's generally dont use it at all, and if I had a PC use it all the time I would have the Magister come b**chslap them and tell them that Mystra hates that.


----------

