Why the fear and hatred of Disjunction?

[KarinsDad]

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

You mean like fun?

Yup, my players are used to that.

So sad for your game. :\

 

[Deset Gled]

Other arguements aside, I think the real reason MD is never used is this:

Even artifacts are subject to disjunction, though there is only a 1% chance per caster level of actually affecting such powerful items. Additionally, if an artifact is destroyed, you must make a DC 25 Will save or permanently lose all spellcasting abilities. (These abilities cannot be recovered by mortal magic, not even miracle or wish.)
Note: Destroying artifacts is a dangerous business, and it is 95% likely to attract the attention of some powerful being who has an interest in or connection with the device.

Every time a caster uses this spell, they are risking a fate much worse than death, or even losing all equipment. Loss of all spellcasting abilities makes a 20th level mage little more than a 3rd level commoner. And nothing can get it back. You may be pretty sure there are no artifacts around, but can you ever be 100% positive? This drawback alone means that MD should only be used by casters as a back-to-the-wall, no-way-out, staring-into-death's-eyes situation. Attracting the negative attention of a god is nothing to laugh at, either.

For a DM to have casters throwing MD around with total disregard for this fact just because they know the character is a one-shot NPC is a sign of poor RPing.

 

[KarinsDad]

Story focused games tend to define the characters by what they are moreso then the equipment they have. So, sure the characters will be under equiped for a while but the players don't feel that their fighter is 30% of a man now. The players will then enjoy the challenge as the story takes a twist and they have to figure out what to do next.

This is an assumption and not very well based in reality. A player in a story focused game can still roleplay a very difficult set of tasks associated with acquiring a specific magical item. If the DM then destroys it, the player can still get angry about it.

It is the height of arrogance to think that players in story focused games are somehow superior to other players with regard to what is and is not fun (or what is or is not annoying).

 

[Crothian]

This is an assumption and not very well based in reality. A player in a story focused game can still roleplay a very difficult set of tasks associated with acquiring a specific magical item. If the DM then destroys it, the player can still get angry about it.

It is based in reality. Not everyone plays this way as I fully admit but some people do. And ya, the p[layer can get angry about it. But he also might not.

It is the height of arrogance to think that players in story focused games are somehow superior to other players with regard to what is and is not fun (or what is or is not annoying).

You just leap to your own wrong assumptions about my remarks. Never did I say one was superior then the other. All I said is not everyone plays in a game that this would be not fun and not everyone will find this annoying. So, please stop making these assumptions and trying to start a fight.

 

[Artoomis]

A spell caster should be afraid of USING Disjunction.

1. Destroys treasure (not a good thing).

2. "Even artifacts are subject to disjunction, though there is only a 1% chance per caster level of actually affecting such powerful items. Additionally, if an artifact is destroyed, you must make a DC 25 Will save or permanently lose all spellcasting abilities. (These abilities cannot be recovered by mortal magic, not even miracle or wish.)

Note: Destroying artifacts is a dangerous business, and it is 95% likely to attract the attention of some powerful being who has an interest in or connection with the device. "

You normally have no way of knowing for sure if artifacts are within the area of effect, making its use dangerous to the caster. In D&D even death is less permanent that losing you spellcasting abilities from using Disjunction.

Antimagic Field is a MUCH better choice, normally.

Disjunction should only be used in extremis, and maybe not even than.

 

[Psion]

I'm glad you are not my DM.

You appear to miss the concept of FUN in the game.

I think this is a bit short sighted. A good DM knows this. Either they:
1) Are prepared to deviate from the guidelines and compensate for it, or
2) Have an interesting treasure in store, but doesn't want to go about contrived "okay, we have this sword here, but you gotta give up all of your stored up +1 swords, etc..." and/or the associated accounting time of selling accumulated goods in order to make room for the new treasure.

Further, threat of loss is one of the most exhilarating emotional kickers in the game. A game without challenge is a boring game.

I think it could be instrumental in providing MORE fun.

 

[KarinsDad]

It is based in reality. Not everyone plays this way as I fully admit but some people do. And ya, the p[layer can get angry about it. But he also might not.

...

You just leap to your own wrong assumptions about my remarks. Never did I say one was superior then the other. All I said is not everyone plays in a game that this would be not fun and not everyone will find this annoying. So, please stop making these assumptions and trying to start a fight.

I'm not the one who said:

The players will then enjoy the challenge

You were directly stating that people in a story focused game will enjoy the challenge.

That's total nonsense. It might happen, but it might not. In fact, it probably will not for many players. Not if the player spent months of real time working for a given item or spent thousands of gold pieces and XP crafting an item.

I'm not trying to pick a fight. I just find your assumptions about story focused games extremely suspect. I suspect that players in such games who totally could care less about their expensive items are the exception as opposed to the rule.

In any case, post a poll. See how many people would find it annoying as compared to who would care less.

 

[Seeten]

Doesn't that add to the challenge? You go into an encounter sure of yourself, then suddenly you're on the back foot, but you conquer in the end. Isn't that so much more of an achievement?

No. Lets look at a case study.

Level 20 party, we have:

Fighter, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard.

Disjunction destroys everything. Wizard spells have lower DC's now, he loses some metamagic, but he has level 9 spells, the ability to shapechange into a fire giant, and the vast majority of his power intact. The Cleric has lower DC's but can still turn, still has his 9th level spells, can restore his equipment via miracle, and basically retains the majority of his power. Level 20 Paladin loses much of his ability to hit high ac foes, loses much of his ac, so he is easy to hit via high ac foes. Loses much of his save bonuses, but not as many as the fighter. Loses the ability to pierce damage reduction, so if the opponent is a DR haver, as almost all CR 20+ monsters are, he is much less likely to be a contributor. In short, he loses far more than the cleric. The fighter loses: AC, To Hit, Ability to Power Attack meaningfully, most of his save bonuses, the ability to pierce DR.

Basically, at high levels, non spell casters ARE their equipment. They have very little personal power. Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Sorcerors have PERSONAL power. Fighters have gear. A fighter has a 20 BAB, but thats not enough against real CR 20 challenges. You need much more than 20, hence why monks have so much trouble hitting. Disjunction is unfair to non-spellcasters, as it strips their base of power.

Mike Mearls fantastic product, Iron Heroes, took the basic assumptions of D&D and stripped the "magic item" requirements from the fighter types. If you want a campaign where wizards throw disjunction around, I strongly recommend allowing all the fighter focused types to pick classes/use the rules from Iron Heroes, so they dont become bystanders watching the real heroes, the Clerics and Wizards, suddenly do everything for them.

 

[KarinsDad]

Further, threat of loss is one of the most exhilarating emotional kickers in the game. A game without challenge is a boring game.

I think it could be instrumental in providing MORE fun.

It really does depend on the type of loss. If it is a loss that can (with effort) be restored, then it might be an emotional kicker.

If it is a loss that is extremely difficult or nearly impossible to restore, then it can be an emotional downer.

Take for example the PC who repeatedly dies and gets raised. If following core rules, he will fall further and further behind the level of other PCs and his dying death spiral will continue. Any reasonable challenge for the other PCs will start becoming a total death threat for him. If the player is emotionally attached to the PC, it might not be the "emotional kicker" that you claim.

 

[lukelightning]

Fighter, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard.

You left out rogue (who sucks anyways), but now the poor guy has an even worse chance of hitting and is way more vulnerable than the fighter.