DM Seeking advice:Disintegrate Counters needed

[Burne]

Spoiler Alert***** Stay out players (you know who you are)








The current creation in question is an Incorporeal Dragon. This makes equipment a less than ideal solution. The ring of counterspells is a good idea for some of the other baddies disinagrate is a particular weakness.

Note that I am the DM of this game, and I'd rather not resort to "DM magic powers" unless I have to (In the form of a researched spell or other un-documented effect). The "1 disintegrate and I lose" question has come up more than once so far, and I was hoping for a spell based solution.

I have a stone giant spellfire wieldier some where but my players would but me to the torch if I used it

 

[Oni]

I can understand your desire not to do something that comes across as just to stymie an attack that you know the players are going to use. However if monster is of that high a caster level then this is something he'll probably have put thought into, a legit in game reason. As long as you are not doing this everytime it shouldn't create a problem, there is nothing wrong with forcing your players to break their normaly routine on occasion to seek an alternate solution. Besides I don't much see the difference if you search all around for something printed to stop it vs. something you made, the end result is the same, and if you worried about your players accusing you of being underhanded, they still might.

If you want something that is already in print, you could always call on the almighty powers of Wish.

 

[Oni]

I agree, but that's not an automatic thing. That would be something he and his DM would need to discuss. Like I said beofre, the possiblity is there.

Um.....he is the DM.

 

[kreynolds]

Um.....he is the DM.

Oh, sure. Just point out the obvious, why don't you?

Actually, guys, here's an idea. Dragons have really awesome fort saves, so why not rely on those? To be honest, now that I know the full scenario, this sounds too much like metagaming.

 

[Oni]

I don't know, I think it is ok for the DM to metagame as long as it leads to the players have a fun and interesting challenge, and not to protect one of their pet monsters.

 

[kreynolds]

I don't know, I think it is ok for the DM to metagame as long as it leads to the players have a fun and interesting challenge, and not to protect one of their pet monsters.

So long as you allow your players to metagame too, that's fine. Otherwise, that's like saying "It's ok for me to kick you in the jimmy, but it's not ok for you to kick me in the jimmy."

Know what I'm sayin'?

 

[Oni]

I think we'll just have to disagree. I feel the DM and players each have seperate roles to fill, and seperate responsibilities. A DM in my opinion should design adventures for the characters in his game, and doing so necessitates using what you know about the characters and thus metagaming. If you players use a certain tactic all the time, it is ok to throw a monkey wrench in every once in a while to give them a more interesting challenge.

 

[kreynolds]

If you players use a certain tactic all the time, it is ok to throw a monkey wrench in every once in a while to give them a more interesting challenge.

I agree, but the monkey-wrench isn't always necessary. Like I said, Dragons have really good Fort saves, so I don't understand why immunity to disintigrate is necessary.

Throwing a monster at your players that is already immune to lightning when your players love to hurl lightning bolts is one thing. The same goes for a creature with fire immunity or resistance when your players love to toss around fireballs. But specifically giving an incorporeal dragon an amulet or spell that makes it immune to disintigration effects smells kinda fishy to me. Now, if that dragon got a hold of the spell because he knew the players were coming to him, thus he is preparing for the inevitable conflict, then I'm fine with it.

If someone blew up my car, I'd no doubt get pissed off and set them on fire. However, if someone blew up my car to save the world, I might be peeved, but it's understandable why they did it. It's all a question of motivation and reason. If you, the DM, have good reason for metagaming, whatever, then were cool. Also, I totally agree that the game should be fun, but I have often found that what many DMs think is fun, they don't find fun at all when they're on the other side of the table.

Anyhoo...

 

[1337 h4xor]

just for curiosity why would your constructs need protection from disentegration a good old golem is immune to all spells but the 1 or 2 that affect it and i didnt see disentegrate on any of them...

otherwise for your dragon a contingency is always an option. as well as any type of magic item that protects him... cloaks of resistance, ring of counterspells etc....

also there is some preperation as you can never suprise a dragon if he's played properly unless they're very stupid dragons.

 

[Burne]

The main reason I posted isn't because this monster is very weak vs. Disintegrate but because the same weakness has appeared a number of times. In truth, I'm sure that the party won't use Disintegrate because the arcane caster just doesn't think about it that way. She took Disintegrate to defeat Force effects and dig holes. I truely can't remember that last time it was used against a enemy baddy.

But when you are a evil monster-type with 23 caster levels, you choose spells that cover your weaknessess. My problem is I couldn't find any way to do so. And I do agree that a literature search isn't much better than a made-up spell, but it is a bit better.

Kreynolds: I specifically said that More fortitude saves isn't a valid answer because I wanted a general solution rather than a solution that only applies to a specific monster.

So far, our list of counters for Disintegrate is:
Proof v Transmutation armor enchantment: +6 cost and not currently available to my PC's
Ring of Counterspells: 4000gp
Have a Divine Rank: Priceless
Mace of Odo (Magic of Fauren): Such a hugely cheesy spell as to not be worth mentioning.