Why the fear and hatred of Disjunction?

[KarinsDad]

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.

Apples and Oranges.

Sure, the entire game has pros and cons.

But, we are discussing a spell which strips some classes and doesn't do it for others and this has serious negative repercussions for many sessions to come, possibly even to the end of a campaign.

Hardly the same as situations where some PCs are more suited for than others. All PCs have situations in which they shine.

 

[billd91]

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.

This is worse than the metagaming inherent in recognizing that the 5000 XP cost is more significant than the value of the lost items?

Individual goals is one thing, but if you're adventuring with someone who won't occasionally take one for the team, why are you adventuring with that PC in the first place? PCs who are excessively self-oriented don't last long in the adventuring parties I'm playing in. If our PCs are adventuring in dangerous places, we want to be able to trust the man at our backs and that requires a little give and take now and then. We seek out and spend more time adventuring with PCs who get along with each other.

 

[billd91]

Apples and Oranges.

Sure, the entire game has pros and cons.

But, we are discussing a spell which strips some classes and doesn't do it for others and this has serious negative repercussions for many sessions to come, possibly even to the end of a campaign.

Hardly the same as situations where some PCs are more suited for than others. All PCs have situations in which they shine.

It's not so different. A situation like this could have serious repercussions. Or it might not if the PCs work together to overcome the situation. Same with a character who is disintegrated or killed in such a way that their recovery is difficult to accomplish. I fail to see how this situation is inherently different from a whole host of other challenges that PCs encounter.

 

[KarinsDad]

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

That doesn't make MD balanced.

WotC only really playtested 3.0, not 3.5. They also revised hundreds of core spells between 3.0 and 3.5. Does that mean that their original playtesting was sufficient?

WotC thought these 3.0 spells needed adjustment with regard to the rest of the game system. They just happened to miss MD, possibly because it typically only occurs in higher level games (which btw polls seem to indicate that most games are played between levels 1 and 10 and hence most of WotC's feedback was probably for levels 1 through 10).

 

[KarinsDad]

It's not so different. A situation like this could have serious repercussions. Or it might not if the PCs work together to overcome the situation. Same with a character who is disintegrated or killed in such a way that their recovery is difficult to accomplish. I fail to see how this situation is inherently different from a whole host of other challenges that PCs encounter.

It is similar, but not identical.

It's one thing to chip in 5000 GP to get a PC raised (where the PC getting raised gets to chip in as well).

It's another to sell off your own items in order to chip in 100,000 to 500,000 GP to get a PC's equipment back up to par.


The concept that a PC would have to chip in is unrealistic. It's like when the PCs expect the Cleric to always be casting Cure spells. The Cleric might do so, but it is his choice. It is not something that should be automatically expected. Ditto for a challenge like this.

 

[Artoomis]

Four artifacts??!!??!?

Sure, some artifacts are fairly minor. I also think that, for the purposes of this spell, legendary weapons should be considered artifacts, too.

But, yes, by 15th level (+) it is not uncommon to have Minor Artifacts. Things like a Sphere of Annihilation, Hammer of Thunderbolts, Philosopher's Stone, any of the Talismans, Book of Inifinite Spells, Deck of Many Things (if not used up) and/or equivalent campaign-specific items.

 

[IcyCool]

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?

Mutual survival is hardly an uncommon goal.

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)?

That depends on how the PCs are played out. Intrigue and blackmail are one thing (as are in-character arguements), but the grabby rogue who steals from the party is another. Nobody in our group likes to play with the latter. We also don't have PC's that bully other PC's, or ones that respond with homicide at every little slight.

And, in case you think we are having bad-wrong-fun, the wizard would likely be compensated for his services in the above scenario, should it come to pass. There isn't a "commune" amongst the PC's, just friendship.

 

[Artoomis]

That doesn't make MD balanced.

Maybe not, but what does is:

1. There is a save for each item.
2. The fact that using it detroys the "spoils." Generally, who want to destroy the treasure?
3. The chance of the spellcaster losing his spellcasting powers is too high for this to be thrown around willy-nilly.
4. The fact that it is 9th level.

I would expect that MD would only occur once (maybe) in a PCs career. The one time I actually had an NPC use it on the PCs, the results were only a couple of items destroyed, including an artifact, and one high-level, powerful PC with no spellcasting abilities.

All-in-all, a pretty balanced result for a 9th level spell.

 

[KarinsDad]

And, in case you think we are having bad-wrong-fun, the wizard would likely be compensated for his services in the above scenario, should it come to pass. There isn't a "commune" amongst the PC's, just friendship.

That's how it tends to work in our games as well (shy of unusual close knit situations like the Wizard is the Fighter's brother or some such). PCs tend to do a lot for each other, but they still draw the line at some things (like 100,000 GP or 5000 XP for free ).

 

[Artoomis]

That's how it tends to work in our games as well (shy of unusual close knit situations like the Wizard is the Fighter's brother or some such). PCs tend to do a lot for each other, but they still draw the line at some things (like 100,000 GP or 5000 XP for free ).

Yep - mutual survival is a powerful incentive for some reasonable level of cooperation, regardless of alignment and other motivations.