Why the fear and hatred of Disjunction?

[KarinsDad]

If it's not fun for your style of running things, you won't use it. If it's appropriate to another DM's style of running things, he will. D&D is more about offering tools to particular tables than requiring all tables to use all of those tools.

DND is about making money for WotC. As such, they will put into the system any idea that comes into their heads, regardless of how broken or game breaking it might be. They don't even bother to carefully edit their products anymore, let alone playtest them. I suspect that if MD were actually playtested, the designers might have limited it to a single item or put some other limitations on it. Just like they made massive changes to a good percentage of the spells from 3.0 to 3.5 when players commented on them.

But, it is not just an issue of fun. That appears to be what you are focusing on with my comments, but that is only one issue.

It is also an issue of balance and MD is not balanced for its level. In fact, it is counter productive to the entire CR / Wealth By Level concept which was put into the game to help DMs control wealth and acquisitions. If a DM has a problem with the PCs having too much wealth, this spell does not resolve it. It significantly hampers certain classes at the exclusion of other classes. That too is not balanced.

 

[KuKu]

Four artifacts??!!??!?

 

[IcyCool]

It is also an issue of balance and MD is not balanced for its level. In fact, it is counter productive to the entire CR / Wealth By Level concept which was put into the game to help DMs control wealth and acquisitions. If a DM has a problem with the PCs having too much wealth, this spell does not resolve it. It significantly hampers certain classes at the exclusion of other classes. That too is not balanced.

So let's say I have a BBEG use MD on an 18th level party, destroying a few magic items (and the party goes on to defeat him anyway, because I didn't design him to be defeated by specific gear). I then have them go through a series of encounters (designed so that the players don't need specific gear to defeat them) wherein they earn enough gear and loot to bring them up to the wealth level of 19th level characters right at the time they level to 19th. What have I done wrong? Where have I eliminated the fun? Or is this scenario ok because I've designed the encounters following MD to account for it?

 

[Crothian]

DND is about making money for WotC. As such, they will put into the system any idea that comes into their heads, regardless of how broken or game breaking it might be. They don't even bother to carefully edit their products anymore, let alone playtest them. I suspect that if MD were actually playtested, the designers might have limited it to a single item or put some other limitations on it. Just like they made massive changes to a good percentage of the spells from 3.0 to 3.5 when players commented on them.

This isn't a spell from a sourcebook though. This is a core spell done when they did playtest.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, there's your problem right there. The PC's don't like each other and apparently can't operate well in a team. It's a miracle they made it to that level anyway.

Are you telling me that all PC arcane casters in your gaming experience would give up 5000 XP for their teammates? Without renumeration? Every single time? At higher levels, that's 25% to 35% of the time that the arcane caster will be one level lower on average in future encounters.

 

[IcyCool]

Are you telling me that all PC arcane casters in your gaming experience would give up 5000 XP for their teammates? Without renumeration? Every single time? At higher levels, that's 25% to 35% of the time that the arcane caster will be one level lower on average in future encounters.

Yes. The players are friends, and the PCs are comrades in arms who have been adventuring together for quite a while (usually). The meatshields have likely saved the bacon of every other party member multiple times over. And, if the casters wind up at a lower level, they'll catch up reasonbly well by receiving more xp.

 

[Crothian]

Yes. The players are friends, and the PCs are comrades in arms who have been adventuring together for quite a while (usually). The meatshields have likely saved the bacon of every other party member multiple times over. And, if the casters wind up at a lower level, they'll catch up reasonbly well by receiving more xp.

That's how it is with our group as well. The players are all friends and they treat D&D like a game and don't take it that seriously. They don't really mind being a level or two lower.

 

[IcyCool]

I will point out that if I were designing an adventure/campaign for a group that wasn't composed of a group of friends, I would not include things that are likely (IMO) to cause issues. MD is definitely high on that list.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yes. The players are friends, and the PCs are comrades in arms who have been adventuring together for quite a while (usually). The meatshields have likely saved the bacon of every other party member multiple times over. And, if the casters wind up at a lower level, they'll catch up reasonbly well by receiving more xp.

So, your group metagames every time that the PCs all have the exact same interests just because it is a game? One for all and all for one every time?

There are no greedy PCs or PCs who grab as much loot as possible for their temple or other organizations? No PCs blackmailed by the NPCs where the other players know nothing about it? No PCs acquiring as much XP as possible? Never any major conflict between PCs (where the players are laughing, but the PCs are arguing)?

Sounds communistic. More like a love in than a living breathing game where PCs are unique individuals with their own personal goals (one of which could be adventuring with others in order to gain power or prestige). The group is always more important than the individual. Strange.


The players in my groups are friends as well, but that does not mean that the PCs are always comrades to the death and beyond. Roleplaying occasional conflicts between PCs is part of the fun. After all, it's a game.

 

[billd91]

It significantly hampers certain classes at the exclusion of other classes. That too is not balanced.

This has hardly been a criterium for balancing individual pieces of the D&D puzzle. Undead significantly hamper certain classes (sneak-attack classes) over others. The silence spell significantly hampers spell-casters compared to fighters. Whether or not one single tool in the D&D game hampers one class more than another is largely irrelevant. It's the reason parties are best when they include some diversity. When one PC is at a particular disadvantage, someone else has a chance to shine.
And as you can see from this debate, there's no clear consensus that the spell is unbalanced as a 9th level spell.
As far as messing with the level/wealth guidelines, they're only guidelines in the first place. And if you do use them, you find that PCs are replacing the wealth they likely lost due to a disjuntion pretty quickly at the levels in which they are likely to encounter a disjunction.