How do you handle Mordenkainen's Disjunction?

[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]

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