Why the fear and hatred of Disjunction?

[Infiniti2000]

That's just differently bad.

I agree, that houserule makes it even worse because it makes it 100% safe for the party to use. They no longer have to worry about destroying the 'phat loot'.

Btw, I see a similar problem in Reaving Dispel, but I can't remember the exact wording off-hand.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Good point there Mr Piratecat!


I think the most elegant change might be to make it a 1 round casting time. Gives a window of opportunity to disrupt it?

Could always get into an arms race by introducing disjunctive buffering - like a dispel buffer, but more uber!

 

[Henry]

I'll relate my recent experiences with Mord's Disjunction:

1) I used it (as DM) not once but TWICE in the climactic battle of Good & Evil in our Eberron game (about Characte level 15). One character managed to be in the area of effect, and he lost about 8 out of the 30-odd items he had on his person, and all buffs running on him. He was still a very effective character.

2) It was used by our Cleric in a 20th character level Forgotten Realms game, as we were desparate to stop an attacking epic-level lich. It undid all his spells, and the spells he had trapped the Barbarian with, but the Barbarian lost ONE item -- a set of Boots of Speed. He was still needless to say very effective.

One thing that people might be forgetting is that each item requires a save, using the character's save numbers. This means that only in the most unlucky of circumstances will ALL or even MOST of your items will be destroyed. Further, it usually only comes up in games of level 15 and higher; I certainly wouldn't use it lower than that, because to me it WOULD be unfair, just as it would be unfair to have 10th level PCs tackling a 20th level wizard and his preparations. Maybe as a campaign-ending thing, but not as a regular challenge.

In my opinion, by the time it comes into play, saves are high enough to where it doesn't spell the end of everything if one goes off. As DM I would adjust future challenges and wealth by level accordingly if it did, because to me the game is not a formulaic thing, but a dynamic project that I and the players work to tweak all the time.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

So, here's a question. Let's say I house ruled the spell in my game to suppress magic items for (say) one round per level, normal will save negates. What's the downside?

The biggest, I think, is that every fight will start with the PCs (or the NPCs) leading with this spell, and the will saves that go with it, as well as the constant rejiggering of stats as items stop working.

That's just differently bad.

That's why I believe that a supression effect would only be useful if a risk of permanently losing items was used as well. Much like negative levels; you are temporarily hindered, but that may become a real problem if there's no restoration around and you fail your saving throw.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, you make a statement that Disjunction should be epic level, but at the same time says that it will be cast by "Joe Average high level Wizard". Isn't "Joe Average high level Wizard" a character only to be seen on epic level games? Because a 17th+ wizard/18th+ sorcerer, to challenge player characters, should not be a Joe Average on the typical non-epic game...

Why not?

I expect 17th level PCs to run into 17th level enemy Wizards every once in a while.

I do not expect 17th level enemy Wizards to wipe out 10 levels worth of acquired items for half of the party with a single spell.

The spell is still epic in power. But by RAW, Joe Average 17th level Wizards (average for 17th level, not average for a campaign world) can cast it.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

There you have my point. Is it possible for 17th level characters to be just "the average"? I for one, would not treat them this way, and when preparing a combat against that character I'd take a lot into account. If story-wise, it made sense for him to prepare Disjunction, he'd prepare it and cast if necessary.

At the same time, I think D&D has enough high CR enemies to allow DMs not to use Wiz 17/Sor 18 against players without a good story reason to do that.

Surely the PCs have a chance of being stripped of equipment, but adventures should come with a degree of danger, and since D&D currently treats death more as a temporary nuisance than a real danger, a risk of losing precious magic items may well enter as the substitute.

Cheers,

 

[Grenouillebleue]

Well I, for one, would have no qualms using Disjunction in one of my games.

Why ?

Because, like someone said, it can actually add to the gaming experience.

Have you noticed that "tough" DMs who don't hesitate to kill a character on a bad roll or a mistake are much more liked than "mellow" ones who always try to find a way out for their players ?

Have you ever wondered why that is ?

Many players (myself and my players included) get their kicks out of challenging encounters, intricate politics and actual risk. The fact that they know their fate hangs on their decisions and the roll of a dice is actually enough to make them sweat. And when they do succeed, they know that it's only through luck and skill, and not the whim of their DM. Hence the sweetness of victory.

When you're playing with a nice DM who never kills players (or does it when there is absolutely no other choice since they screwed up so much), you won't enjoy your successes as much as you would have. A keen +4 rapier is worth that much more when it almost killed you in the hands of a skilled duelist.

Why am I speaking about death ? Because it's the same with disjunction. It could and should be used sometimes. Not always, because it has significant drawbacks for the BBEG. Your players won't use it because they want the loot, and your bad guys shouldn't as well - unless they're outmatched and it looks like their only chance.

But if they do use it, well, tough luck. Part of being a hero is facing this kind of challenge.

 

[Psion]

There you have my point. Is it possible for 17th level characters to be just "the average"?

Indeed.

I for one, would not treat them this way, and when preparing a combat against that character I'd take a lot into account. If story-wise, it made sense for him to prepare Disjunction, he'd prepare it and cast if necessary.

Yep. If your GM is going to engineer the mage to screw you, you are screwed anyways.

At the same time, I think D&D has enough high CR enemies to allow DMs not to use Wiz 17/Sor 18 against players without a good story reason to do that.

I have difficulty seeing a sorcerer spending its only 9th level known spell on MD.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yep. If your GM is going to engineer the mage to screw you, you are screwed anyways.

An issue with MD is that the DM can screw you badly without intending to.


But, the main issue with MD is that the DM will almost definitely screw the fighter types and hardly harm the spell casting types. Again, he might do this unintentionally.

A 20th level Cleric without PrCs might have a Will save in the range of about +27. With a few PrCs, +30.

MD for a Wizard with a 30 Int has a DC of 29. The Cleric will often save 95% of the time.

A 20th level Fighter with or without PrCs (since most PrCs do not add to Will saves) might have a Will save of about +12 to +15. He can easily lose 60% to 80% of his items.

One class might lose at most 10% of his items and the other might lose at most 80%.

This is extremely skewed and can easily result in unintended massive screwing over of some PCs by the DM with a single spell.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Surely the PCs have a chance of being stripped of equipment, but adventures should come with a degree of danger, and since D&D currently treats death more as a temporary nuisance than a real danger, a risk of losing precious magic items may well enter as the substitute.

That's a classic design flaw. If D&D treating "death more as a temporary nuisance than a real danger" is a problem in the game then it should be resolved directly, not by going elsewhere. For example, if your car gets really poor gas mileage and that's a problem you want resolved, you should not just add a second gas tank. The solution to death being trivial should not be, "let's find a different way to screw the PC", it should be "let's make death nontrivial."

Because, like someone said, it can actually add to the gaming experience.

Yes, it can add to the gaming experience by making that experience suck wind.

Many players (myself and my players included) get their kicks out of challenging encounters, intricate politics and actual risk.

Wait, did I follow you correctly? A "mellow" DM can't have intricate politics? Or, are you just adding that in there?

But if they do use it, well, tough luck. Part of being a hero is facing this kind of challenge.

No, it's not. There should be no correlation at all between death and mage's disjunction (besides being killed as a result of not being able to defend yourself or escape).