Why the fear and hatred of Disjunction?

[Crothian]

There are also tables to determine random treasure. Except in very rare circumstances, the two will not agree, and a DM that specifically sets out to run a low wealth or a low magic campaign will likely ignore both.

The tables are there for the DMs using random tables so they can keep the power level of the PCs about right. DM's that ignore the rules doesn't really matter to the rules in the DMG.

So, what's changed?

They looked at the fact that people liked magical items in the old editions and made it a requirement in 3.x

 

[Crothian]

Yes, but how is it different from previous editions? A DM with no eye for balance or power levels will cause problems for the PCs regardless of edition.

Bad DMs are bad DMs if it has changed or not. So, saying that a bad DM will mess it up doesn't prove anything.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

The old Mordenkainen's Disjunction, 9th level (Mage's Disjunction now?) was the terror of every high level group I was in.
The enemy mage cast it, and ...

The fighter lost his plate armor +3, shield +3, long sword +5, girdle of giant strength, and 5 healing potions. He lost the Stoneskin and Infravision cast on him.
The cleric lost her armor +4, shield +1, mace of disruption, cloak of displacement, helm of telepathy, rod of resurrection (30 charges!) and all her prepared scrolls of healing and protection (against various things.) She also lost the effects of the Prayer and Bless spells she had put up, the mobile Protection from Evil, and the Negative Plane Protection as well.
The wizard lost his cloak of protection +5, his ring of protection +3, his staff of the magi (35 charges!), his wand of lightning, his rod of cancellation, and his talisman of the sphere. Also, his Stoneskin collapsed, along with his Haste, Fire Shield, one-way Wall of Force spell, Contingency spell, and that nifty Chromatic Blade spell (the blade it conjured disappeared.)
The thief lost ... (etc.)

All of this with no saving throw for any character, item, or spell effect allowed. Presto, and the entire party is permanently Demagicked!
Unless, of course, the party could cough up the money for about 5 or so Wishes to get all their items back, assuming they actually survived the battle with the Disjunction casting wizard ...

Oh yes, the party had an artifact/relic: the Ring of Gaax. The enemy wizard was 19th level, so his Disjunction had a 19% chance of taking out the Sword. And it DID take it out.
No Wish spell will ever get the Ring of Gaax back!

Back at that time, no Counterspell rule existed. One could not counterspell Mordenkainen's Disjunction, could not ready an action to counterspell, could not Reactive Counterspell (or whatever that's called), could not make observation checks in the 3E sense to see what was coming, and otherwise could not do much of anything.
The only thing you COULD do back then was appreciate it was an archmage you were facing, and HOPE TO GOD YOU WON INITIATIVE.

Yeah, it was a terror spell.

Edena_of_Neith

 

[Infiniti2000]

The old Mordenkainen's Disjunction, 9th level (Mage's Disjunction now?) ...

There's something called d20 now. Say hello to the System Reference Document.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I think you're missing the player habituation. If your players are habituated to a thing then they need a reality check.

Yes, I so agree with you. Surely only a loser would trust a DM to not suddenly change his habits and game style. Trust is a crutch for the weak.

And if the DM decides to be an idiot or malicious or both, it can only be the players fault if they do not have fun.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

They looked at the fact that people liked magical items in the old editions and made it a requirement in 3.x

I would not call it a requirement, so much as a guideline that reasonably reflects common preferences.

For all that some like to whine about the 3e wealth guidelines and how 3e officially enshrines giving the PCs so much wealth, I have never played in a long running 1e/2e campaign where I did not have much more loot than any "by the book" 3e campaign.

 

[kenobi65]

There's something called d20 now. Say hello to the System Reference Document.

What I2000 is referring to is that in the SRD, the proper names (which are still WotC intellectual property, and thus not part of the OGL) have been removed.

Thus, the spell is still referred to as Mordenkainen's Disjunction in the PHB, but Mage's Disjunction in the SRD.

(Similarly, the Quiver of Ehlonna becomes the Efficient Quiver, Keoghtum's Ointment becomes Restorative Ointment, etc.)

 

[Mad Zagyg]

This spell comes up many times, on many forums. It is clearly an unbalanced spell. This is not to say it isn't useful in someone's campaign, but it definitely isn't something you want to be frequently throwing around.

I have pretty much disallowed it in most of my campaigns.

Here are the big problems as I see them:

1. It slows down game time in the most annoying way possible. I mean seriously, this spell doesn't get thrown at a party early in their careers - which means they are probably high level (10+). Typical characters at that level are going to be rolling through a helluva lot of magic items and losing a whole lot of 'em. Boring, aggravating, and unfair.

2. Characters with high Will Saving Throws are going to come out better than those who don't. Seems rather silly to base a powerful magic item's destruction on its wielder's saving throw. I realize that there are other situations where Reflex Saves are used to determine the fate of an item, but in this case it seems arbitrary and not well thought-out.

3. As has been mentioned previously, the caster (PC or NPC) probably shouldn't feel very comfortable casting the spell due to the possibility of someone in the group possessing an artifact of some kind - especially if either side consists of characters or villains of 15+ levels.

Hard to say if the spell should be fixed or dropped.

Any suggestions on how the "feel" of the spell can be maintained, but the above three issues can be avoided?

 

[FireLance]

I would not call it a requirement, so much as a guideline that reasonably reflects common preferences.

And that, essentially, is what I've been driving at. The wealth by level table may be in the DMG, but I don't recall any advice along the lines of "The PCs must be this rich to play the game", or "If the PCs are below the suggested wealth, add more gold to the next randomly determined treasure".

In fact, in the 3.0e DMG (I'm away from my 3.5e DMG at the moment), the wealth by level table is brought up in the context of suggesting to the DM that one of the ways to maintain measurable control over the PC's power levels is to strictly monitor their wealth! Amazing how it's morphed from a tool to help the DM control PC power levels to a rule that requires DMs to hand out magic items.

 

[FireLance]

Any suggestions on how the "feel" of the spell can be maintained, but the above three issues can be avoided?

Have it affect one item only with no save, and make it reversible with wish or miracle.