DM Seeking advice:Disintegrate Counters needed

[kreynolds]

How does the form of a (for example) psuedodragon that is a familiar differ from the form of one that is not?

Do you mean in regards to familiars? Beats the hell out of me. Again, I didn't write the book. I assume they wrote that section because familiars are awfully weak and vulnerable. Giving them magic items helps increase their chances for survival at least a little bit.

I think this is important as you seem to be so focused on form rather than type.

Here's why "form" is important and "type" is irrelevant. The Polymorph spell states that Constructs do not possess item slots, right? But it's form that matters. How can I prove this? Take a look at the Worm that Walks in the ELH. It's a construct in humanoid form, and it is fully capable of using equipment. In fact, every Worm that Walks encountered has a basic set of equipment. Now, if "type" was the deciding factor in this, as you believe it to be of at least some importance, then the Worm that Walks could not use equipment at all, simply because it's a construct. But, it can in fact use equipment, no matter what it's type is, simply because it is in humanoid form.

I can't stress enough that "type" has nothing at all to do with this. A finger is a finger. If you have one, you should be able to wear a ring. Arguably, a dragon does not have a finger, but in fact has a claw, and there is a difference between the two, if only slightly.

There is no reason to get defensive.

I wasn't really defensive. I was just trying to prevent a flame-war before it started.

You gave an example, and I gave a suitable (at least I hope it was) rebuttal to that example.

Well, your rebuttal was partially suitable, but mostly not. Refer to my response to that rebuttal for more info.

I'm not taking anything out on you, simply looking for the most concrete evidence you can provide of your argument.

I urge you to keep looking, but I think you'll have a difficult time finding an example that doesn't come back to Polymorph.

You keep coming back to this, and I'm confused why. You wanted evidence of this within the rules. I gave it. It's in the Polymorph spell. You don't like the Polymorph spell because it's been errated a few times, but that's not my problem. I gave an example for the current errated version of the spell, which is within the rules of the game, yet you don't like it. Again, not my problem. If you can show me where that passage in the spell is in error, then I'll certainly consider your argument.

In short, I provided proof, you don't like it, and here we are. It would be like you telling me I was late for work, me showing you my watch which clearly shows that I'm not late, and you saying I'm late anyways because you don't like my watch, even though your watch says the exact same thing. *shrug*

You say immaterial, I say another good reason why Polymorph isn't a good indicator.

It is immaterial. See second answer.

However we can just skip on this one for now as it's not particularly important.

If it's not important, why do you keep bringing it up?

The changes in spells per day is reflected in his statblock as a dragon. Not only that, there isn't a single form changing spell on his spell list, and reds don't have that ability naturally. Not to mention if he were somehow polymorphed and turned into a human wearing his ring, and then the spell was dispelled does the ring magically disappear?

Tome & Blood contradicts itself. You pointed out the familar/magic item section, which states that familiars can use magic items, because some of them have item slots as well. Yet in the spell description for Polymorph it states that Dragons cannot use equipment. It doesn't state "some dragons", it states simply "dragons". Granted, that passage is not 100% solid at all, seeing as how it has been proven that certain creatures do in fact have item slots and can use equipment, such as the drider above.

Now, you can have a pseudodragon for a familiar, and a pseudodragon is still a dragon, but even though it's type is irrelevant, it is also in dragon form, and dragons cannot use equipment, so it doesn't matter if it's a familiar or not. The creature simply isn't capable of using equipment because it doesn't have any item slots. Tome & Blood says "yes" and "no" at the same time.

Based on the Polymorph spells you said, "None those listed use equipment or have item slots, and because of that, your equipment melds into your body when you polymorph into one." That is a very absolute statement. According to your own argument it would be impossible for the Mindflayer to wear rings, or use the cloak. I did read the drider example above, and had basically ignored it since you countered your own argument, I wanted to give you a chance to defend you stance.

I politely ask that you dispense with this counterproductive behavior and please try to keep this discussion going forward, not backwards. The contradiction you mention was pointed out a while back, and addressed a while back, and responded to a while back, and progress was made a while back. Your bringing it up again serves absolutely no purpose, except perhaps to try and derail the argument by pointed backwards to something that has already been gone over.

This was part of the discussion...

EDIT: Also, a Half-Dragon/Half-(humanoid type, such as humanoid, giant, etc) have item slots just like a normal humanoid. Driders can wear rings though, since their hands are just like a humanoids, and it would stand to reason that they could wear other equipment as well (there is a drider in City of the Spider Queen that has a ring of protection). Basically, if it's somewhat humanoid, it has item slots. If it has hands (not just claws), it can wield weapons. If it has a humanoid head, it can wear a headband, goggles, helm, etc.

And don't forget that just about anything can be outfitted with armor (or barding).

...but you seem to have completely ignored the fact that I agreed with drnuncheon that the statement cannot be applied 100%, as a drider is an abberation, yet it can wear a ring, thus it has an item slot.

Please, I beg of you that you refrain from resorting to pettiness, and please, if pettiness is not the case (which it very well might not be) at least give me the courtesy of actually reading my posts. I give you that courtesy by default.

I refer you to my argument above.

What argument? What you stated above was one of two things; either an attempt at a petty jab or an oversight because you didn't read my posts.

Nothing presumtuous about it, I felt that it was a legitamate question some people reading this thread might raise

Nobody has raised it so far...

I would also ask why weapons do not count.

Do you have a hand? You do? Then explain why you couldn't wield a weapon. Need an example? Take the Balor. It's an Outsider, and the Polymorph spell states that some outsiders can't use equipment, yet the Balor specifically uses a Vorpal weapon. What about a Lantern Archon, which is also an outsider. Can the Lantern Archon use equipment? What's the distinction? Hands.

This makes no distinction between slotted equipment and non-slotted equipment.

By definition, a slotless item does not take up any space on the character. An Ooze doesn't have any item slots, but it doesn't need an item slot if it has a slotless item.

If you use this as the basis of your argument then you must include weapons even if they are a handy counter arguement.

See previous answers.

So then Polymorph has no bearing on the situation?

Of course it does. Polymorph made a blanket statement about creatures and the ability to use equipment. Personally, I don't see why a Dragon shouldn't be able to wear a ring, but at the same time, it shouldn't. Perhaps it's fingers are normal enough, and a testament to that would be the fact that they can use their hands for somatic spell components. But, initially, I argued that they didn't have any item slots at all. The Drider example above (the one involving weapons) sent me on a hunt to find a drider I had seen that was wearing a ring. I found it and brought it forward, and viewpoint had been expanded.

The Polymorph spells makes a statement that is essentially a primer, but certain creatures should be evaluated carefully to see if they should be able to use equipment.

So then Polymorph has no bearing on the situation? If we are deciding on a case by case basis I think that would be the case. That brings us full circle back around to the familiars and Klauth.

Ah yes, the familiars. Here's what we have left. You site a passage in Tome & Blood that says familiars, such as a pseudodragon, have item slots and can use magic items. I show you a passage in the very same book that says dragons cannot use equipment. At first glance, I would say only one of them is right, but I've done more than just glance at it.

There is the possibility that familiars do indeed get concessions because they are so weak and vulnerable, such as a pseudrodragon familiar being able to use slotted magic items, even though the very same book says that dragons cannot.

By the way, I noticed this...

Not to mention if he were somehow polymorphed and turned into a human wearing his ring, and then the spell was dispelled does the ring magically disappear?

To be honest, I'm not sure. I made a statement about this earlier but I had it backwards. Instead of the dragon -> human I was thinking human -> dragon, which would mean that the ring is absorbed.

But, since the dragon form would be it's natural form, and if it's human form was dispelled, I don't know what would happen to the ring. Rings state that they magically resize to fit the wearer, so it only stands to reason that it would remain on the dragon's finger, but whether or not it will function is a different matter altogether.

Like I said, I don't have a problem with a dragon wearing a ring, but Tome & Blood both says "no" and "yes, in regards to familiiars" at the same time. Also, like I said...case by case basis.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

by the way I think spell turning works on disinigrate. I never heard nor read that it doesn't work on spells with an effect. It's limits are 3-fold one it can't be an area of effect, two it can't be a touch atacks and 3 it is 1d6+4 worth of spell levels.

 

[kreynolds]

by the way I think spell turning works on disinigrate. I never heard nor read that it doesn't work on spells with an effect. It's limits are 3-fold one it can't be an area of effect, two it can't be a touch atacks and 3 it is 1d6+4 worth of spell levels.

Yup. Spell Turning should work just fine.

 

[Oni]

I'll answer my own question here to begin with, what difference in form is there between a psuedodragon that is a familiar and one that is not? In, there isn't any. So the familiar version of a creature can use an item, then the nonfamiliar version should be able to as well (intelligence allowing).


You say that Polymorph dictates a certain rule, then you say that there are case by case exceptions. I'm confused here, how is Polymorph dictating any of this. The rules contained within Polymorph refer only to Polymorph itself, and abilities that refer back to Polymorph. They have no bearing on anything else, they have no bearing on whether a creature has slot for items or not. You keep contradicting yourself, so obviously there has to be a flaw in your logic somewhere.


In your Worm that Walks (which is an ooze by the way, not a construct) example you say that it can use certain items because it is humanoid in form. Show me wear in the rules it says you have to humanoid in form to use slotted items.


The only reason I even mention type is in questioning that validity of Polymorph as an example, because in not actually making the target the creature, it is a poor example of what rules apply to the creaute. Does that make sense, because I cannot explain it any clearer than that.


As for your responce to my rebuttal of Wildshape as good example, all you did was acuse me of attacking your for your example. If you don't believe me go back and read your response, I've done so several times (as with all of your post on this thread, it is childish to accuse someone of not reading your post if they don't agree with you).


You ask me why I keep asking for examples other than Polymorph, here is the reason. The rules in Polymorph refer only to Polymorph, they don't dictate anything else, that is why I keep asking for other examples. The fact that they refer only to Polymorph should be very evident from your need to make exceptions to the very rule you cited in order to justify some of the examples you have been given, such as the drider.


I'm not disagreeing with you to be disagreeable, I'm disagreeing with you because I feel you are incorrect. In essense to call upon your example, my watch most certainly doesn't say the same thing your says, that or your reading yours upside down.


I don't feel that Tome and Blood contradicts itself, because the Polymorph applies only to itself, the rules contained there in are not meant to be used wholesale across the entire game.


I also have not ignored the fact that you said the rules from Polymorph cannot be applied 100% of the time. In fact, that alone should be enough to point out that Polymorph has no bearing on the situation, if you have to repeatedly make exceptions to it. If a rule has that many exceptions then it's not a rule, its not even a guideline, it has no bearing.


I argued that driders could not use weapons according to the rules of Polymorph if they are applied as 100% true, to show how silly it was, which I think it does. Of course they can use weapons, but the fact that they do shows that the rules by Polymorph are not reliable, and thus are not applicable. I'm sorry if that was unclear.


What does all this mean? Well simply put, it means that Polymorph means absolutely nothing as to what items a creature can and cannot use.


I end on this thought. It is bad form to accuse me of being petty or of not reading your post (neither of which is the case) when you cannot defend your assertions any other way. Is it necessary to question my character or motivations if I disagree with you? Defend you assertion without resorting to low tactics, or admit your wrong. I also believe if you go back and reread my post you'll find answers to many of your questions, and arguments that already address your counter arguments if you read carefully enough. Perhaps I am not always clear, but the information is there.

 

[kreynolds]

I'll answer my own question here to begin with, what difference in form is there between a psuedodragon that is a familiar and one that is not?

There shouldn't be a difference, but one passage says they can use items and the other says they can't.

So the familiar version of a creature can use an item, then the nonfamiliar version should be able to as well (intelligence allowing).

This is an assumption on your part, your interpretation. The passage regarding familiars does not state that it applys to all creatures, and the passage in the spell states that it applies to all creatures. One of them is wrong, or both of them are right.

You say that Polymorph dictates a certain rule, then you say that there are case by case exceptions. I'm confused here, how is Polymorph dictating any of this. The rules contained within Polymorph refer only to Polymorph itself, and abilities that refer back to Polymorph. They have no bearing on anything else, they have no bearing on whether a creature has slot for items or not.

Then show me something that says otherwise. Show me a passage that states that all creatures have item slots. Show me a passage that does not exclusively apply to familiars.

You keep contradicting yourself, so obviously there has to be a flaw in your logic somewhere.

I haven't been contradicting myself at all. My opinion on this matter has been evolving along with this discussion. The more we talk about this, the more I see this matter in a new light. Perhaps you would rather me stick to my guns and simply ignore everything you say. Perhaps you would prefer that I do not truly participate in a discussion and simply state that you are wrong without providing any evidence to the contrary.

We are having a discussion, and as it progresses, new bits of informationn are brought to the table, and as those bits of info are digested, my viewpoint widens to accept things I had not thought of before. That's the basis of any discussion, otherwise there would be no point in having the discussion in the first place. So, in effect, you are accusing me of contradicting myself simply because my viewpoint is expanding. I find that very amusing seeing as how I'm trying my best to keep an open mind. Would you prefer that I adopt a bull-headed attitude and simply refuse to digest/process any new ideas offered by others? A fresh viewpoint was offered by drnuncheon above, and I adopted it into my own viewpoint as his was quite logical and pointed out the flaw in my own argument. I call that progress. Perhaps you call that something else.

In your Worm that Walks (which is an ooze by the way, not a construct)

My bad. I mixed up the two, but my viewpoint still applies solidly.

Show me wear in the rules it says you have to humanoid in form to use slotted items.

The polymorph spell outlines what creatures cannot use equipment, albeit rather roughly. But, it does not mention humanoids at all. Would you like to know another type it doesn't mention at all? Giants. Why? Because they possess the very same item slots as a humanoid. After all, they're just bigger versions of a humanoid. How about another? Monstrous Humanoids.

The familiar passage outlines how they can use equipment. Those are the only two applicable rules quotes. You don't like my quote and I don't like yours. What next? I think we need another viewpoint in this matter.

The only reason I even mention type is in questioning that validity of Polymorph as an example, because in not actually making the target the creature, it is a poor example of what rules apply to the creaute. Does that make sense, because I cannot explain it any clearer than that.

No, that doesn't make any sense at all, and neither is it applicable to matter. Again, why does your type even matter? In my opinion, it is your form that is important, perhaps even a combination of both, but your type should make a difference. The polymorph spell states that some shapechangers cannot use equipment. This implies that the form of the shaperchanger is the mitigating factor in regards to whether or not it can use equipment. A shaperchanger in humanoid form can use equipment without a problem at all, seeing as how it possesses all of the appropriate item slots. But if a shaperchanger is in the form of a monstrous spider, it can't use equipment because that form doesn't allow any item slots.

As for your responce to my rebuttal of Wildshape as good example, all you did was acuse me of attacking your for your example.

See fourth answer.

If you don't believe me go back and read your response

You're right. I don't believe you. See fourth answer.

(as with all of your post on this thread, it is childish to accuse someone of not reading your post if they don't agree with you).

So all of my posts are chilidish? So I take it you are throwing civility right out the window? I haven't berated you in any way. I made assumptions as to the motives behind your posts, and I even stated in those very assumptions that I might have been wrong, yet you call me childish for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I also didn't accuse you of not reading my posts simply because you don't agree with me. I made that accusation because you felt it necessary for some reason to rehash an old piece of this discussion that had already been addressed. You referred to a post when I had but one viewpoint, but my viewpoint had since expanded to accept other ideas. It was pointless to bring it up.

You ask me why I keep asking for examples other than Polymorph, here is the reason. The rules in Polymorph refer only to Polymorph, they don't dictate anything else, that is why I keep asking for other examples. The fact that they refer only to Polymorph should be very evident from your need to make exceptions to the very rule you cited in order to justify some of the examples you have been given, such as the drider.

And the familiar passage does not state that it applies to all creatures, yet you make exceptions to the very rules that you quote, stating that it should. You're in no better boat than I am.

I'm not disagreeing with you to be disagreeable, I'm disagreeing with you because I feel you are incorrect.

Same here.

In essense to call upon your example, my watch most certainly doesn't say the same thing your says, that or your reading yours upside down.

You refer to a passage that only mentions familiars. I refer to a passage that is only in a spell. But, somehow, you believe your passage is more solid than mine, even though it specifically focuses upon familiars. When drnuncheon pointed out that Driders wield weapons, I remembered the Drider with the Ring of Protection. I then admitted that the polymorph spell obviously could be taken word for word, that creatures must be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Funny enough, the passage regarding familiars also states that they must be evaluated on a case by case basis, yet you are claiming that the passage applies to all creatures, even though it only refers to familiars.

Also, by stating that I am "reading my watch upside down", you are implying that my opinion is obviously wrong and that you are obviously right, even though you haven't provided any evidence that is more solid than mine. You claim the equipment limitations in the polymorph the polymorph spell only pertain the spell itself because of the very location in which it resides. The same can be said of your own referrence. It is in the familiar section of the book, and it only addresses familiars.

I realized that the limitations dictated by Polymorph could not be stretched to apply to all creaures (thanks drnuncheon). However, you are stretching your own referrence outside the bounds of the passage.

I don't feel that Tome and Blood contradicts itself, because the Polymorph applies only to itself, the rules contained there in are not meant to be used wholesale across the entire game.

The passage regarding familiars does not mention anything but familiars, yet you seem to believe it states otherwise.

I also have not ignored the fact that you said the rules from Polymorph cannot be applied 100% of the time. In fact, that alone should be enough to point out that Polymorph has no bearing on the situation, if you have to repeatedly make exceptions to it. If a rule has that many exceptions then it's not a rule, its not even a guideline, it has no bearing.

Yet you make exceptions to the passage regarding familiars. Curious.

I argued that driders could not use weapons according to the rules of Polymorph if they are applied as 100% true, to show how silly it was, which I think it does.

And that argument is invalid, because Driders can in fact use equipment, which is why I accepted others ideas as valid and adopted a new viewpoint, yet you keep bringing it up as if I had never accepted that idea. In effect, you are not making forward progress but simply rehasing old posts that have since been clarified.

I'm sorry if that was unclear.

What is unclear to me is why you keep bringing this up, even after I admitted that the limitations in the polymorph spell cannot be applied wholesale because said limitations were vague and unspecific.

What does all this mean? Well simply put, it means that Polymorph means absolutely nothing as to what items a creature can and cannot use.

And the passage regarding familiars is more applicable than the passage in the description of polymorph? You say that the passage in the description of polymorph only applies to the polymorph spell, and nothing else. Your very logic demands that the passage regarding familiars only applies to familiars.

It is bad form to accuse me of being petty or of not reading your post (neither of which is the case)

Again, I even stated in my assumptions that I could be wrong, effectively giving you the benefit of the doubt, yet you seem to wish to ignore that. You imply that I harbored malicious intent by making assumptions in regards to your motives, yet my very admission that I could be wrong in my assumptions only proves that I was not judging you, when in fact, I was simply making an assumption and accepting the possibility that you had no ill intentions.

when you cannot defend your assertions any other way.

Yet you defend your assertions by calling me "childish"? How strange.

Is it necessary to question my character or motivations if I disagree with you?

See previous answers.

Defend you assertion without resorting to low tactics, or admit your wrong.

So, my admittal that I could be wrong about your intentions is a "low tactic"? Perhaps you would rather I behave as I used to? I can tell you now, that's not going to happen. You call me childish, yet you resort to demanding that I "admit I'm wrong", when in my opinion, you have not defended your assertions to my satisfaction either.

This is what's called a "disagreement". A "disagreement" happens when two people do not share the same viewpoint. It happens all the time. Yet you resort to claiming that I am using "low tacticts" by giving you the benefit of the doubt by admitting I could be wrong about your intentions, and you also call me "childish". This just keeps getting stranger and stranger.

I also believe if you go back and reread my post you'll find answers to many of your questions, and arguments that already address your counter arguments if you read carefully enough. Perhaps I am not always clear, but the information is there.

Perhaps I misunderstand your assertions. Perhaps you weren't clear. Perhaps I just outright think you are wrong about the passage regarding familiars apply to all creatures. Here's my theory...

...I think you're wrong.

So, that means you and I have come to a "disagreement", and unless you can continue this discussion without resorting to name-calling, then I have no interest in continuing it with you, as I would rather not see this thread closed.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

by the way I think spell turning works on disinigrate.

I was thinking about the attack roll - who makes it?

Spell turning doesn't protect against disintegrate. Disintegrate is an effect spell, not a targeted spell.

http://boards.wizards.com/rpg/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=118;t=003006;p=

 

[kreynolds]

I was thinking about the attack roll - who makes it?

The person casting disintegrate? Or do you mean the attack roll for it being bounced back? In this particular case, neither.

After reading the spell description of Spell Turning more closely, and after visiting the thread that you linked to above, it doesn't say that it doesn't protect against "area of effect" spells, it says it doesn't protect against "effect and area", and that's the difference.

 

[Oni]

Ok, the point I think I'm stuck on here is the insistance on using Polymorph as the basis of this rules decision.

It makes an absolute statement in regards to what creature types can and cannot use items. This statement has been proven not to be true at least in a good deal of cases (such as the drider with the ring, and in my opinion Klauth as well).

For the above reason I do not believe polymorph is a good indicator, simply because of the number of exceptions.

As for the rules regarding familiars and items, I am of the opinion that these are more open ended. No where does it make an absolute statement regarding what can and cannot use items, or even that these are special rules specific too familiars. In fact that entire section is more clarification and advice than rules, I would venture to say that it adds nothing to the rules set that isn't already there.

If form dictates what can and cannot use an item rather than type, logic dictates that if two creatures share the same form then they both should be physically capable of using a given item.

The section on familiars provides the very reasoning on why they can use items, and it is something that can be applied elsewhere, there is no reason it should be specific to familiars only.

"What magic items can a familiar use? Since most fit users of any size, the simple answer is quite a few. Some exceptions exist, though."

Then it goes on to explain what those exceptions might be and why.

If size is one of the major determining factors in what will fit non-humanoid shapes let us turn to the DMG.

"Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they adjust themselves magically to the wearer. As a rule, size should not keep overweight characters, characters of various genders, or characters of various kinds from using magic items." DMG pg 176 Size and Magic items.

and just to be clear on what character means I'll reference the glossary in the back of the PHB

"Character: A fictional individual within the confines of a fantasy game setting. The words "character" and "creature" are often used synonymously within these rules, since almost any creature could be a character within the game, and every character is a creature (as opposed to an object)."



Ok, correct me if I am misrepresenting you here, but basically you're saying that what items a creature can and cannot use should be decided on a case by case basis. I say what items a creature can use should be decided on a case by case basis. Same thing. Our disagreement lies not in the end result but by the route by which to get there. I just as interested in how one arrives at a ruling as the ruling itself. I think this is where the wires are crossed, I'm not sure that we are both trying to get the same thing out of this back and forth (though I may be wrong, but I believe there has been a basic miscommunication of intent here). If you are not interested in discussing the means rather than the end result, then I withdraw. If you are interested then I think we can manage to keep things at a low broil if we agree to what end we are debating.

 

[kreynolds]

Ok, correct me if I am misrepresenting you here, but basically you're saying that what items a creature can and cannot use should be decided on a case by case basis. I say what items a creature can use should be decided on a case by case basis. Same thing. Our disagreement lies not in the end result but by the route by which to get there.

Exactly. As I said, I disagree with your means and you disagree with mine, and that's fine, because in the end, we agree on the destination.

I just as interested in how one arrives at a ruling as the ruling itself. I think this is where the wires are crossed, I'm not sure that we are both trying to get the same thing out of this back and forth (though I may be wrong, but I believe there has been a basic miscommunication of intent here).

Honestly, I still have no idea what your intent was, but I'll just accept the possibility that there was no malice involved and move on.

If you are not interested in discussing the means rather than the end result, then I withdraw.

Actually, that's all I'm interested in, and I already stated so in my previous post.

If you are interested then I think we can manage to keep things at a low broil if we agree to what end we are debating.

Since we do indeed agree upon the "case by case basis", I'm sure we can figure something out. But in regards to keeping things at a low broil, that's not a problem for me, as I've haven't flared up or crossed the line once in this thread. So, the only question that remains is can you do this as well? I hope so. You strike me as a bright individual, and I'd like to keep this discussion going, if at all possible.

Moving forward, I guess we now face the question of "What creatures have slots and what creatures don't, and if they do, what slots do they have?"

I think a snake would be a good start. Tome & Blood states that snakes can wear items over its head or body. What types of items can they wear and how many slots do they have?

 

[Jalkain]

I know that more generic solutions are being sought and I know that what I'm about to suggest is from a source that not everyone uses, but I've seen several threads dealing with the problems of disintegrate. And this idea seems too funny to not mention...

There's this prestige class from Dragon Magazine 281.

http://www.angelfire.com/games3/3DandD/prestige_classes/arcanopath_monk.html

They get deflect ray at 4th level, and, then, reflect ray at 9th level! All they need to do is make the appropriate reflex save, and then make an attack roll to redirect it at the caster. Can you imagine the look on the sorcerer's face when he sees his disintegrate ray coming right back him!

The particularly ironic part of this scenario (I suppose it's true of spell turning in general) is that the caster must then save vs his own DC. So Spell Focus (Transmutation), Heighten Spell, and anything else which raises the spell DC, actually helps contribute to his own demise...