Why the fear and hatred of Disjunction?

[Artoomis]

Not really. If you are disarmed, the culprit is highly unlikely to destroy the item and therefore you can get it back. Sunder is only (very) easy if you house rule it to be less than a standard action. Even though, there are some things you can't sunder and in either case it's one item at a time, not ALL of them, and it doesn't include all of your active spells.

That's not an appropriate analogy at all.

Sunder as an attack (rather than a standard action) is not a house rule. YOU may view it as such, but that is not what WotC says in the FAQ. It is, I admit ONE WAY to view the rules as written,. but please do not presuppose you have the only correct answer on that one.


Yes, it is one item at a time, true, but it can happen in ANY combat. In fact, one might wonder why it is not done more often? Wouldn't you think a monster is more likely to swat at the sword that is hurting it that the wielder?

Not that I am suggesting DMs starting subndering PCs weapon all the time, just that it is far more likley to happen than MD and thus a much greater risk to your equipment.

As for disarm, the possibility of your equipment being destroyed is very real if it is important. For example, if the bad guy manages to disarm the Holy Avenger and get away with it, he would be wise to destroy it.

Again, a more likely scenario than MD.

 

[Artoomis]

Most DM's dont try to sunder their fighter's weapons.

Most DMs don't have NPCs use MD, either. I still view sunder as the far more likley threat.

My Barbarian made an Adamantine weapon after his first great axe was sundered. To sunder the Adamantine magic axe, you'd need an MDJ, pretty much, and you know, its still a vicious adamantine axe, even disjoined....

Nah... just lots and lots of damage. I'll bet your barabrian could sunder it in a few rounds, if it even took that long.

 

[Seeten]

At hardness 20? I dunno, with the amount of hp it has, and hardness 20, the axe will live far longer than the barbarian would. So if they sunder the axe till it dies, well, at least the party either wins in the meantime, or thats hundreds of hp that wasnt down to the 74hp barbarian.

 

[Artoomis]

So... why isn't Sunder used all the time?

Because:

1. It destroys treasure.
2. It has an inherent down side of NOT doing damage to you opponent who is beating on you.

So... why isn't MD done all the item?

1. It's a ninth level spell and there are almost always better options.
2. It destroys treasure.
3. It has a risk of losing all spellcasting abilities FOREVER.

So there you have it. It's all good if a DM (or players) do not abuse it.

 

[Artoomis]

At hardness 20? I dunno, with the amount of hp it has, and hardness 20, the axe will live far longer than the barbarian would. So if they sunder the axe till it dies, well, at least the party either wins in the meantime, or thats hundreds of hp that wasnt down to the 74hp barbarian.

At levels we are talking about, how many barbarian and/or fighters can't often do 50 points or more in one blow, never mind what can be done in a full attack? A little two-handed power attack goodness and afew other things wham - no more whatever it used to be (weapon or whatever).

 

[Infiniti2000]

As is, there is no way to definitively measure its power level as it has no standarized numerical effect.

I quite think that the number of targets, effects, items, bonuses to rolls, etc. all are numerical. How are they not numerical? It may not be entirely numerical, but IMO certainly enough to form a judgment. I'm not looking for a mathematical thesis, just your judgment. There is no wrong answer. I'm not looking to trap you in some answer, but I want to see if you can form a judgment on the relative power levels of spells (using some metric that you yourself can devise) and use that as a basis to determine brokenness. Whether you write it all down or just form an opinion is up to you.

For example, consider that MD (disjunction) strips all spell, I'll only compare the targeted versions.

DM: one target, maximum +10, does not affect items if targeted on a creature, does not affect artifacts, suppresses an item for 1d4 rounds

GDM: As DM, but maximum +20 and can remove curses

MD: all items and effects within a 40ft radius burst, magic items get a will save or be rendered normal, no dispel check necessary against all other effects, AMF may be brought down (and then everything within it disjoined), may destroy artifacts (albeit with a potential negative consequence), does not affect personal items/effects so you can drop this spell around yourself without consequence

The bonus on GDM is useful, to be sure, but it's even less than other similar caster level-bonus spells (e.g. mass cure light wounds, 5th level is +25). The fact that it also removes curses is useful, however, and might warrant the 6th level. Overall, I'd say GDM is weak for 6th-level, but maybe not too weak. I'd judge the curve at this point to be linear at best.

MD, however, is worlds above GDM from what GDM is above DM. The changes are nearly incalculable. How many creature can fit within the area, if not just trying to fill it up, but normally? I'd say most of the time it will be every possible opponent. There's no chance of failure on all effects, either. The fact that it's no longer even Target negates certain other chances to avoid it's fate. It's extra abilities make it even stronger. I judge it to be unbelievably powerful for a 9th level spell. It should be epic, and I would say that even if you strike the parts about artifacts.

Otoh, it's a burst and therefore does not affect anything with total cover. So, items stored in your backpack or wherever the DM deems has total cover will not be affected. Note that since it's not a Reflex save, normal cover doesn't help.

 

[Artoomis]

...Otoh, it's a burst and therefore does not affect anything with total cover. So, items stored in your backpack or wherever the DM deems has total cover will not be affected...

Cool. I had not realized that.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sunder is only (very) easy if you house rule it to be less than a standard action. Even though, there are some things you can't sunder and in either case it's one item at a time, not ALL of them, and it doesn't include all of your active spells.

That's not an appropriate analogy at all.

Sunder is fairly close with regard to item destruction (in fact, we just had this discussion with our DM yesterday) and it does not take a standard action. It takes a melee attack.

You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding.

...

You don’t use an opposed attack roll to damage a carried or worn object. Instead, just make an attack roll against the object’s AC.

The AC of items is 10 + size + Dex. At high levels (remembering that opponents might have Haste or other ways to get additional attacks), a full round attack could easily be 5 items with no save in a single round.

Attack small items with the first few attacks and larger items with lesser iterative attacks.

A ring typically has AC 18+Dex, Hardness 10, and about 5-7 hit points. For a 20th level Barbarian, he could easily Sunder both of the Wizard's Rings, his Amulet, his Staff, and his Cloak in a single full round attack. Better yet, his Headband of Intellect (which is cool that you can easily sunder his headband without touching his head ).

No saves. 95% chance of success per item.

 

[Crothian]

Also with Sunder there is the great tactical feat from Complete Warrior that has the option to cleave after a successful sunder.

 

[Artoomis]

...MD, however, is worlds above GDM from what GDM is above DM. The changes are nearly incalculable....

How does it compare to Wish or Miracle, though? Or to other ninth level spells. What is it's REAL power after allowing for it's potential down side of possibly losing all spellcasting abilities forever?

I personally cannot answer those questions definitively, but I can say it feels like a pretty good ninth level spell to me. Appropriately powered at ninth level.