Is it acceptable for a DM to use disjunction on the PCs

[Vysirez]

So in the Disjunction thread some comments made me curious what the general feeling on the use of Mordenkainen's/Mage's Disjunction was. Specifically when the DM has NPCs use it on the PC's in a high level game.

I personally think it is a spell that should almost never be used, especially by the DM. But the disjunction thread went on a ways and I was curious what a poll would result in. Sorry if this has been run, I tried a bit of searching and didnt find anything.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Yes.

 

[EyeontheMountain]

If it were brought to the point I would use it, I would be better of making my own spell, so it should be removed.

 

[frankthedm]

So in the Disjunction thread some comments made me curious what the general feeling on the use of Mordenkainen's/Mage's Disjunction was. Specifically when the DM has NPCs use it on the PC's in a high level game.

I personally think it is a spell that should almost never be used, especially by the DM.

A smart character should use every way imaginable to win a combat. If an option works then it should be used, PC or NPC. Both sides operate by the same rules. Sunder, Disjunction or grapple, if these are so strong as to be considered 'nuculear options' then the ruleset has issues that should be addressed.

Since the spell is incongruent with how Wotc has set up their edition of D&D to be a carefully balanced game of accumilation, I'd say remove it. Disjunction' only real balance come from the finality of it. Nuking a classed NPC's gear drop's their potency so badly, the fight is better than half over. But to do so destroys a lot of treasure. And if the disjuntion is not permanent, the needed backlash is hardly justified.

 

[Psion]

Yes.

I voted option 2, though the wording isn't a perfect match for my feelings. I think the DM should feel free to use it when either they feel it is logical and appropriate or it is needed to balance the party magic item load.

I have little sympathy for players who cannot handle any adversity. Someone else has a sig quote about how adventurers who aren't willing to take a few risks should stay at home and become farmers.

 

[Thanee]

Didn't vote, since there was no fitting option.

It's ok to use Disjunction, if it is available, and it makes sense for the character in question and the situation.

It might be worthy of consideration to remove/house rule this spell, if it seems too powerful.

I don't think it should be used as a means to regulate treasure...

Bye
Thanee

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Didn't vote, since there was no fitting option.

It's ok to use Disjunction, if it is available, and it makes sense for the character in question and the situation.

It might be worthy of consideration to remove/house rule this spell, if it seems too powerful.

I don't think it should be used as a means to regulate treasure...

Bye
Thanee

My house rule: Disjunction suppresses the action of magic items exactly the same way that Dispel Magic does, except that the duration of the suppression is 24 hours. The item gets a Will save versus this effect, as usual for the spell. If the Will save is a natural 1, the item is permanently disjoined.

And I agree that disjunction shouldn't be way for the DM to just take stuff away from the players.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Voted for 2, even if "game that has gotten too item dependent" is not exactly the kind of circumstance I have in mind.

From everything we have already discussed in the other thread, I believe it's a spell that should be adjudicated carefully by the DM, but banning it is just an exaggeration caused by a feeling of frustration of players who play item/power focused games.

Cheers,

 

[KarinsDad]

Since the spell is incongruent with how Wotc has set up their edition of D&D to be a carefully balanced game of accumilation, I'd say remove it. Disjunction' only real balance come from the finality of it. Nuking a classed NPC's gear drop's their potency so badly, the fight is better than half over. But to do so destroys a lot of treasure. And if the disjuntion is not permanent, the needed backlash is hardly justified.

Agreed.

This would be like creating a spell to specifically semi-permanently remove a prerequisite feat from a PC, just so that he loses all of his Prestige Class abilities (and dependent feats).

 

[FireLance]

I voted for the first option, but I should add that I play with a convention that would completely restore the PCs to standard wealth levels the next time they gain a level, so the effect of a disjunction would only be temporary.