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

[Destil]

Disjunction is a pretty big gun, some of the effects are border-line epic. Therefore I've given it have a 1 full round casting time. At the levels involved it should give PCs a number of options on stopping it from destroying all their items.

 

[Slife]

Only if the PCs use it first

 

[Seeten]

I think any option that generally leaves the Cleric unscathed while literally destroying the fighter and rogue is completely unbalanced.

This "Nuclear Weapon" literally annihilates the gear upon which high level fighters and rogues depend, but leaves the uber clerics and druids completely unscathed, barring 1's on their rolls.

I think its just a terribly poor option for a number of reasons. But, its in the game, so some people that pride themselves on hurting the players will use it.
YARTRAC. Yet Another Reason To Roll A Cleric.

 

[The_Old_one]

Yes.

It's a spell that PCs have access to as readily as NPCs of equal level, and it's a perfectly valid tactic for a caster facing death at the hands of magic toting enemies.

It's up there with saying that NPCs can't use Wish, Power Word:Kill or any number of 9th level spells. By the time the party are facing foes of such power, they should be prepared to both fight them, and deal with the consequences thereof.

 

[pogre]

I don't ban it, but I don't use it. It takes a lot of the fun out of the game for us.

 

[Scarbonac]

As a DM,I take a lot of time inventing unique campaign-specific themed items for the PCs to find (if they're able to wrest them from the Opposition), and I'll be goddamned if I'll nuke my own work via Mordenkainen's Disjunction, just as I wouldn't make a painting for others to view and then set it on fire.

As a player, MD would make me cry.


Mordenkainen's Disjunction belongs only in the spellbook of Mordenkainen, as a curiosity of the wizard's Art.

 

[STARP_Social_Officer]

I've used it. High-level wizards are dangerous. MD is just one of the dangers they pose. If you can't handle the heat, etc...

 

[takyris]

It didn't derail the game I DM'd too badly, but then, I didn't have every bad guy use it, and people's saves were high enough that it didn't really get that many items. Also, apparently I ran an item-intensive game, so people were tossing each other their backup equipment as necessary. Nobody ended up wearing a loincloth as a result of the spell.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

As a DM I don't use disjunction much, the few characters I've played up to such levels have tended to focus on other aspects of magic use. I don't consider it unacceptable, but I've added houserules such that in the 3e game I DM characters tend not to have many items but rather more "imbued effects" that can't be permanently disjoined just suppressed (though disjunction suppresses them for several hours gametime). They don't have as many magic items to disjoin and most enemies are as motivated to loot the PCs as the PCs are to loot them so they don't pull it out often.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I think it's okay for an NPC to use disjunction against the PCs, but not okay for the DM to use it against the players.

Thirded.

I think it is acceptable for the dm to create a character with access to it, and if that character finds good cause to use it then they use it. However I'd add that that character would consider the consequences of the spell before they cast it.

Chances are such a character would also have a researchable history that could allow PCs plenty of opportunity to prepare counters to such a devastating attack.