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

[Li Shenron]

Well, first of all I would NOT use Disjunction as a metagame device to "fix" the amount of magic equipment I have erroneously granted to the players! If I noticed that I gave them too much, I'd either lower treasure from the next adventure, or talk to the players about the game problem, but I wouldn't "trick" them with a spell.

Anyway, normally I don't run a game so high in level to reach 9th level spells, but I do play in such games and I think Disjunction should be used, but fairly.

If I was DM-ing such a game, I would consider the following:

1) When the party's equipment is destroyed, they fall behind the DMG suggested wealth by level, so I'm simply going to keep that in mind when handing out treasures in the following adventures. This is what I normally do for lost/stolen/sundered gear anyway. There is still a penalty for losing the items, but it's temporary rather than permanent.

2) I'll try not to overuse the spell anyway, to prevent it from becoming boring. Anyway the spell has a huge penalty for the caster: it makes the fight easier, but destroys the treasure. The NPC are going to think in the same terms: they won't destroy their potential treasure unless they think it's the only way to win the battle. Just because the DM knows that 99% of the times the NPCs lose, it doesn't mean that THEY know...

 

[delericho]

It's absolutely appropriate for the DM to use it.

However, powers like that, and permanent level loss, and rust monsters have to be used with care. Overuse can generate some really bad feelings around the game table. So tread lightly.

Oh, one more thing: if the players develop a 'killer tactic' which they then use monotonously, such as the use of Disjunction against all their foes, then that can be really bad for the game. In that case, the DM would be well-advised to speak to his players about not just overusing it. If they refuse, then turnaround is fair play.

 

[Justin Cray]

Since MD is the first spell I'd take as a PC sorcerer I of course allow it as a DM.

This of course is true vice versa, too.

 

[Artoomis]

Are artifacts really that common in your experience? Even if they are it is pretty likely that there is a less than 1% chance of losing spellcasting abilities....

I personally have not seen artifacts to be that common. It would be interesting I suppose if every threat that came across a party had one though. At some point artifacts become common, especially if the party is already carrying around a few dozen. Does that sound like a typical campaign?

I think that, typically, a very high level party (over level 15) is very likely to have a minor artifact - or even several.

And the chance of losing spellcasting abilities is closer to 10%. Not a trivial risk to take.

 

[Crust]

I didn't vote, as I don't necessarily agree with any of the choices.

I think disjunctions are ok only so long as the PCs or the opponent(s) of the PCs have access to the spell and the DM understands the consequences.

I think that a DM should consider the repercussions of such a game-altering spell. High-level PCs don't necessarily need to be covered in magical items, and in certain instances could be able to buy or create new items, so the disjunction is only an immediate problem during the encounter in which the spell was used.

PCs of the appropriate level should be able to use the spell whenever they choose to.

The most recent time I used the spell was when the PCs battled none other than Acererak in his Fortress of Conclusion (part of my githyanki Incursion campaign... long story). During the first round of combat, the demi-lich used disjunction on the PCs, wiping out all spell buffs and threatening all magical items in the party. Roughly 10 minutes later PCs had fewer magical items and no buffs, but they still managed to send Acererak's phylactery plummeting into the Negative, and the demi-lich was disrupted... for a time (I brought him back as an atropal later in the campaign).

The last time a PC used it was during Dungeon #123's "Quicksilver Hourglass" module. The cleric of Mystra (male human paladin 2/spellfire channeler 4/cleric of Mystra 21) used disjunction against the combined forces of the half-fiend cleric (Loviatar in my campaign) and the epic vampire sorcerer. Like a divine edict from Mystra herself, the cleric banished all magic cloaking the foes, and the PCs mopped up. It was a moving moment of divine power.

DMs certainly need to prepare for such a spell, whether he/she uses it against PCs or PCs use it against bosses and other foes.

 

[Lanefan]

I've no problem with it in theory; in practice it's a bit above our level...

I'd like to come up with a lower-level (maybe about 5th) Disenchant spell, that has a chance of taking all enchantments off one target item, permanently, at close range. The item would get a save, unaffected in any way by the bonuses etc. of whoever or whatever was wielding/using/carrying it at the time, but affected by how magical it is (a +4 sword would get a better save than a +1) and-or the level of its creator.

You'd think that with so many people able to make items on a relative whim, *someone* would have designed such a spell just to cut down on the arms proliferation.

Lanefan