Why the fear and hatred of Disjunction?

[Quartz]

It seems to me that the main problem with it is that it isn't used against players until they're high level. If it were used against them regularly (but infrequently) then they'd be used to it and have coping strategies. And 3rd Ed is much better than previous editions in that whereas in 2e, there were some monsters you couldn't hit without magic weapons, now it's simply DR, which a fighter can usually surpass. And the base material of the weapon is still important: a demagicked adamantine sword can still bypass a mage's stoneskin.

 

[Victim]

It seems to me that the main problem with it is that it isn't used against players until they're high level. If it were used against them regularly (but infrequently) then they'd be used to it and have coping strategies. And 3rd Ed is much better than previous editions in that whereas in 2e, there were some monsters you couldn't hit without magic weapons, now it's simply DR, which a fighter can usually surpass. And the base material of the weapon is still important: a demagicked adamantine sword can still bypass a mage's stoneskin.

You're right, it is all about expectations. At low levels, I expect to lose nearly nothing from a Disjunction - the party will have a handful of buffs, and magic items are barely better than masterwork. At high levels, I expect the group to lose dozens of spells and hundreds of thousands of GP, which will make an immediate and significant detrimental impact. It's like a spell that does 1 damage to first level characters and 150 to high level ones. Coping strategies at low levels basically aren't relevant anymore.

 

[Li Shenron]

Dysjunction = Sunder = Game balance is threatened by too much or not enough treasure. If you allow the spell to be used widely, you have to counter the effect by allowing easy access to item crafting/buying and money. Now if you do that and don't use it enough, you have too much items.

I don't run games high level enough to see Mordenkainen's Disjunction used very often, but I always use the DMG guidelines to keep the PC equipment up to their level.

Hence, if they lose their equipment for any reason, I compensate with raising the treasure later. It's actually really easy.

There is no permanent loss, which in my opinion is a good thing.
There is still a temporary penalty (because they obviously won't go back to the same equipment level very soon), which is enough to motivate them to take care of their equipment.

 

[glass]

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.

'Product Identity' (PI), not 'Intellectual Property' (IP). The SRD is still Wizards' intellectual property.

IANAL, TINLA.


glass.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Less pity was shown to my groups by our old DMs.
It was assumed that if you were high level, you knew well enough to avoid archmages, or - if you had to fight them - how to properly prepare for such a battle.
Thus, if the party got hit with Mordenkainen's Disjunction (Mage's Disjunction) that was too bad. Just count your lucky stars you somehow survived the fight anyways.

LOL. Yeah, it was dangerous in the old days. If you messed with an archmage, you were history. There were some things best left avoided, and among them were beholders, death knights, liches, ancient dragons, and ... archmages.

 

[KarinsDad]

LOL. Yeah, it was dangerous in the old days. If you messed with an archmage, you were history. There were some things best left avoided, and among them were beholders, death knights, liches, ancient dragons, and ... archmages.

Actually, I strongly agree with this sentiment.

But at the same time, I realize that Disjunction is really an Epic level spell lowered to 9th level and I realize that people play the game to have fun.

It's one thing to lose to an Archmage or a Lich (assuming you at least had a chance to get some licks in). It's another to lose most of your equipment to Joe Average high level Wizard considering that at those levels, your own PC Wizard or Sorcerer is that powerful as well.

The other aspect of this is that the items get a Will save. That means that for many Clerics, Druids, and Monks, they will lose very little equipment, maybe even none. Wizards, Sorcerers and Paladins will typically lose slightly more. Fighter, Rogues, and Rangers will typically lose quite a bit more.

The spell is skewed to doubly screw certain classes of PCs: the type of PCs which are more reliant on equipment to survive at those levels.

 

[Infiniti2000]

It seems to me that the main problem with it is that it isn't used against players until they're high level.

Wait a minute, 9th-level spells not being used until high-level? Are you suggesting that you should 'habituate' your players to expect 9th-level spells at low- or mid-levels? Oh, from a previous post it seems you, in fact, do hit your PCs with 9th-level spells at 7th-level. How do they handle power word kill, gate (e.g. balor), and similar spells, I wonder?

It's trivial to obtain a TPK if that's what you're shooting for. It's certainly not good DMing to plan it.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Yeah, it was a terror spell.

Welcome to the land of 9th level ones, it usually hurts when they hit...

Personally I think that the simple notion that being killed is better that losing equipment denounces a terrible bug on the way the system is handling both death and magic items. Either death should be more of a considerable punishment or characters should be less defined by how much bonuses they accumulate on item slots (maybe both...)

cheers,

 

[Piratecat]

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.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Actually, I strongly agree with this sentiment.

But at the same time, I realize that Disjunction is really an Epic level spell lowered to 9th level and I realize that people play the game to have fun.

It's one thing to lose to an Archmage or a Lich (assuming you at least had a chance to get some licks in). It's another to lose most of your equipment to Joe Average high level Wizard considering that at those levels, your own PC Wizard or Sorcerer is that powerful as well.

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...

If your DM is using wizards as powerful as Circle of Eight members in the average "encounter featuring magic users", the problem is not the spell, but the way the things that should be special and feel unique are being handled in the game.

cheers,