Blasphemy and Disjunction discussion

[Cheiromancer]

Your suggestion was very helpful. I priced the "only restored demagicked items" as a major (-6) limitation, worth a spell level. Making it so it could restore any destroyed item would need to be counterbalanced somehow: decreasing the temporal range to 20 days would do it, or increasing the casting time to 10 minutes. Or adding another 1500 xp in costs. I think I would do one of those things. Or maybe drop it to 20 minutes range, and make it 8th level.

I'm happy with an xp cost for this kind of spell. 1000 xp is not unreasonably expensive, but is not exactly trivial either.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I'm still thinking about whether it would be desirable to have a "new uses for old feats" section. Or at least a "new uses for Empower" section. Having Empower raise the cap on greater dispel magic would a neat trick.

I still like this idea - unfortunately, I'd completely forgotten about it. I might need to read over the big thread again. There's probably other stuff that I shouldn't forget, as well.

I like undisjunction, as well. I think maybe we should snag it, or something very similar - if you're agreeable to that, Mr. Silverbane. If our endeavour comes to print, you would of course be credited.

Jim, you're so fickle. You really need to decide on a sig, and stick to it.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I still like this idea - unfortunately, I'd completely forgotten about it. I might need to read over the big thread again. There's probably other stuff that I shouldn't forget, as well.

I'm slowly moving backwards in the thread mining it for material that shouldn't get lost. Some older stuff will be less relevant, but I wouldn't want something like Magnificat to get lost. Well it won't, since it has been mentioned recently. But I bet there's something I'm forgetting that's in danger of being lost.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I like undisjunction, as well. I think maybe we should snag it, or something very similar - if you're agreeable to that, Mr. Silverbane. If our endeavour comes to print, you would of course be credited.

Oh, I'd be absolutely amenable to your using undisjunction.

Later
silver

 

[Cheiromancer]

There's a discussion on mordenkainen's disjunction here. One thing I thought was interesting was that Piratecat makes it a full round casting time spell. So people can try to disrupt the spell and/or escape.

Another point was that the spell was disproportionately harsh against fighter types who rely more heavily on their items and have lower Will saves. Perhaps the following might be a better way of handling it:

each permanent magic item must make a successful Will save or have its magical properties suppressed for 24 hours. At the end of this time the item must make a second Will saving throw using its base save against DC 15: if it fails the save, the item is rendered nonmagical.​

A powerful magic item will have a save of about +12; it fails only 10% of the time. Cheap items will fail about half the time (save = 2 + CL/2).

Or maybe have MDJ work normally against spell completion and spell trigger items, but not against other items. Or work normally on most items, but not weapons and armor. This is just an attempt to level the playing field so that fighters and barbarians aren't disproportionately hosed.

Hmmm. Maybe I'll post this over in that thread.

[edit] While I was composing the post over there, I thought that maybe weapons and armor should get their enhancement bonus (including special abilities) to their save. In which case a DC 20 would be fair. PCs would be hesitant to use it promiscuously, for fear of destroying loot, but fighters wouldn't be hosed if they were on the receiving end.