Why the fear and hatred of Disjunction?

[Nadaka]

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.

That would depend on the DM. My first DM was one to hand out decks of many things at every oportunity... Even to first level characters. Practically everyone had a deck and anytime we got sick of one of his campains, all we had to do is decide to draw a bunch of cards from one the the half dozen DoMT we had.

However, the vast majority of DMs use artifacts very very sparingly. one or two here and there, with few staying with the party permenantly.

I myself have never had the party keep an artifact for more than a few weeks in game time.

 

[KarinsDad]

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

There is no metagaming in that. The character might not know it as XP, but he still has to have a concept of "I learn a lot slower for several months if I cast this spell".

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.

There is a difference between taking one for the team and handing over major wealth.

20th level Fighter loses 400,000 GP in items. So, the other 3 members of the 4 member party decide to pony up 100,000 GP each so that the Fighter balances back up with the rest of the PCs.

With a ratio of $100 to 1 GP, that 10 million dollars. I do not care how close a friend and business partner is, in real life I am not taking $10 million of my $50 million estate and giving it to him just because he got pounded $40 million in the stock market. And neither would my other 2 business partners.

Now, why would you roleplay most PCs in such an illogical manner? Sure, an occassional unusual and extremely altruistic PC might be strongly motivated to do such a thing, but the vast majority of the PCs should look at the Fighter as if he has grown a third eye if he asked for this.

 

[Bad Paper]

I do not care how close a friend and business partner is, in real life I am not taking $10 million of my $50 million estate and giving it to him just because he got pounded $40 million in the stock market. And neither would my other 2 business partners.

This analogy doesn't work. You need to devise one where all four of you throw the entire combined $200 million weight of your "estates" to grow them (exponentially, by the DMG tables). With that in mind, combining resources to make up for a $40 million shortfall (and not in some stock market anomaly but as a cost of doing business) does not seem farfetched.

Now, why would you roleplay most PCs in such an illogical manner?

...because most people play Good PCs? Apparently not you?

 

[billd91]

With a ratio of $100 to 1 GP, that 10 million dollars. I do not care how close a friend and business partner is, in real life I am not taking $10 million of my $50 million estate and giving it to him just because he got pounded $40 million in the stock market. And neither would my other 2 business partners.

Now, why would you roleplay most PCs in such an illogical manner? Sure, an occassional unusual and extremely altruistic PC might be strongly motivated to do such a thing, but the vast majority of the PCs should look at the Fighter as if he has grown a third eye if he asked for this.

But the adventuring life isn't the stock market. It directly affects your own ability to survive. If the PCs are looking at someone they've face death with on numerous occasions who is now down on his luck as far as equipment goes as if they have a 3rd eye, then something's probably wrong with those PCs.

 

[Montague68]

It's not being wiped out. The spell is not going back in time and taking away all the fun we had for the past year. The spell is not destroying plots or sessions, it's just taking out some equipment. Equipment can be replaced. Go down to the local 7-11 magic store and buy more. Take a side adventure into the dungeon of magical treasure that exists in all campaign worlds.

I think this is more that there are players that cannot accept bad things happening to their character. And that's fine.

Been away on vacation, else I'd have replied sooner

And the crux of your argument is that equipment should be just equipment. In that case, sure. My +5 sword can be replaced no problem.

However, if you as DM introduce Lightbringer, the Legendary Holy Sword that the Demigod Holyguy used to destroy the foul Demon Lord Bigbadevilguy, create an intricate plot and massive adventure where at the end the victorious paladin holds aloft the mighty sword, don't you think even the most story oriented paladin might be a "teensy" bit annoyed when the next game a Lich rips off a Disjunction and bye-bye Holy Avenger?

But then again, if you can simply just trot down a side dungeon and Holy Avengers or Staves of Power/Magi or other such items fall from the sky like manna then no, the players aren't likely to be too annoyed. Myself, I put a lot of story background into major items and require major efforts to acquire them, and my players rightfully take pride in their major items. Having them destroyed willy-nilly with this spell and ascribing it to "thems the breaks when ya mess with archmages" is absurd in that context.

Perhaps it isn't that players are unable to take bad things happening, as it is that certain DM's instill stronger feelings in the items they give out by using background and weaving them into the campaign world instead of blithely reading over the DMG and say "alright you find a set of Full Plate +4 and a Rod of Resurrection, and 30,000 gp."

 

[Slaved]

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

I disagree fully with your conclusion. The reasons are posted earlier though.

Going over some peoples comments and looking through my own games I have both run and been in for quite a number of years now I can confidently say that there were about 3 artifacts total, major and minor, that would've had a chance of being with the party. Only one actually was for any length of time though and given that dm he would've ruled that the artifact was immune to disjunction anyway.

I agree with nadaka, it is just too dm dependent. I would expect in a fairly average game for there to not be any artifacts in the party. And I am still confused as to how mortal magic can destroy things so far beyond mortal magic.

Going through the numbers though we have the following.......

Disjunction caster level 17 = 17% chance to effect an artifact
A character at this level is rather likely to have a +5 resistance item, likely more but we will go with the basics. That gives about a +16 vs the disjunction spell vs DC 30 (a guess, it could be higher but then it could also be lower, this is a stat of 32, if a mage was really worried about artifacts he could remove his +6 int item before casting)
After that if the artifact is destroyed then the mage gets a saving through. His will save bonus is very likely to be much higher than +16 but we will go with that here.

0.17*0.65*0.4=0.04 which is about 4%

This is pretty much baseline. I would expect the mage to have at least a +20 on his will save and if artifacts are so incredibly common in the world that this is actually a worry then he could also have a couple of luck blades on hand.

That was also a minor artifact with only a 18th caster level. They do go higher and artifacts as listed as only having one means of destruction which should be very difficult, it is kindof sad that any 17th level mage has such an easy time of it.

Look, easy answer folks: Wish.
Allow a Wish spell - a SINGLE Wish spell - to recover all the items lost to a Mage's Disjunction - a SINGLE Mage's Disjunction. 9th level spell used to counteract a 9th level spell.

I meant to comment on this earlier, how is this equal at all?

Yes, they are both 9th level, but one of them is 9th level + 5k exp while the other is simply 9th level.

Plus the one that lacks an exp cost has even more effects than just that. So it is one spell + massive exp cost undoing part of the damage of a single spell without an exp cost.

 

[Crothian]

Perhaps it isn't that players are unable to take bad things happening, as it is that certain DM's instill stronger feelings in the items they give out by using background and weaving them into the campaign world instead of blithely reading over the DMG and say "alright you find a set of Full Plate +4 and a Rod of Resurrection, and 30,000 gp."

Playstyle does matter with the spell and there are specific instances DMs can set that this spell would ruin. That doesn't mean that overall the spell is bad. I doubt there is a spell that specific circumstances can not be made for to make that spell seem bad. I feel the spell as is is good and has a place in the game. It does not, however, have a place in everygame.

 

[Stalker0]

Here's my thought, what NPC wizard wouldn't use it?

Sure I'm going to destroy some loot. Big whoop, if I'm killing a party anywhere near to my CR I'm still raking in a whole lot more magic than I could get anywhere else, and lowering my risk factor by leaps and bounds. Even if I don't kill your most precious items your buffs are zeroed, making it a better fight in my favor.

Now there's the slight risk of a party having an artifact. But as most people have mentioned that's usually pretty small, and the overall chances of that happening are low. I think I'd rather take on that small risk then risk the possibility of dieing, then having this group bind my soul and stick me on a shelf so I never get ressurected.

There's just nothing more damageing an npc wizard can throw at a party, especially if they do in the first encoutner and then quicken teleport out. All of a sudden the party is dramatically weaker and my goons can clean up the mess.

And of course there's the old rule the world scheme. Okay, so let me get this straight. I, BBEG, want to take over the world. The main thing that stands in my way is this group of high level adventureres. Why the heck would I hold back if I have this nuclear bomb in my back pocket?

To me, if an npc wizard has disjunction, he's going to use disjunction. And I think forcing the party to lose so much of their gear with a single spell is just no fun.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

However, if you as DM introduce Lightbringer, the Legendary Holy Sword that the Demigod Holyguy used to destroy the foul Demon Lord Bigbadevilguy... I put a lot of story background into major items and require major efforts to acquire them, and my players rightfully take pride in their major items. Having them destroyed willy-nilly with this spell and ascribing it to "thems the breaks when ya mess with archmages" is absurd in that context.

As lots of people pointed earlier, it's up to you to use it or not. I'd not use it on the holy avenger described above without a good reason (giving the paladin an opportunity to go into an epic quest to recover it would be a nice way to do it, though).

The problem here is that people who hate MD seem not to be able to accept the fact that some do like it how it's written, and it's easier to ignore something than rebuilding (especially if you already don't like the idea of items being destroyed in first place). I've been ignoring all spells of resurrection for 90% of my campaigns since I started DMing, and you won't see me ranting about the fact that they're in the PH, I understand that they serve various games very well. In my games though, being 500.000gp poorer should be a huge relief if death was the other probable fate.

D&D is not mathematics; it calculates things to make for a better gaming experience, but it's a storytelling/roleplaying game after all, and players should take that into account. I trust my DMs to make the game fun even if I'm playing a 20th level fighter with nothing but masterwork items, and I'd go as far as saying that I could still have fun playing the poor archmage who accidentally destroyed an artifact with disjunction...

In the end, though, is all about playing style, and I'm sure the fact that Disjunction is at the core rules is not preventing you, Karinsdad, or any of the other guys on the thread from having fun with D&D, or you all would have already quit it.

Cheers,

 

[Jhulae]

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

True, yes. In the one campaign where I was playing a LE Wizard/Shadow Adept, she defintely made sure to work with the party for her survival.

However, there's no *way* she would have given up 5k exp for the rest of the group, unless a lot of *her* items needed to be restored, or if the party gave her some *major* compensation. Otherwise, it would have been "So sorry, but I really can't justify that."