Why the fear and hatred of Disjunction?

[KarinsDad]

A little like spending time painting the mona lisa, and then having someone stab the painting with a knife. Yet there is a point to the process of creating the work of art, but you would also want to have the product undamaged.

This is the bottom line that the "story focused" argument is lame in comparison to.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I think this is more that there are players that cannot accept bad things happening to their character. And that's fine.

Indeed.

In said "story focused game" have the players make opposed diplomacy rolls with the BBEG. For every failed roll the player loses his henchman, lover/spouse, stronghold, mentor, noble rank, land, citizenship, etc. permanently. That's the equivalent effect of Disjunction in a more item-based game. Would those players in that story-focused game just roll with the punches and accept a year or more of hard work in that campaign wiped out with one die roll? I doubt it. But yet more item-concerned players should just suck it up and deal with it because it's a challenge.

I think you're kind of exagerating things a little bit. I believe that a better comparison would be to say "have the player manage a will saving throw against a 9th level spell or he'll just be erased from the memory of all henchman, lover/spouse, stronghold, mentor, noble rank, land, citizenship, etc. he has". As a story focused player, I believe this approach to be not only challenging, but quite interesting, and I'd love to play to recover everything I'd have lost to the spell.

Cheers,

 

[Philip]

How about the spell halting play for at least 30 minutes (in high level parties) while all magic items and active spells are rolled for one by one to see if they are destroyed by the disjunction? And then the subsequent adjusting of all the stats when players try to account for their lost gear. It's just a headache for DM and player alike.

The only DM's I see use the spell are those who are playing a kind of competitive game with their players, or those who use it as a cheap device to instill fear in their players.

It's a game-stopper spell. In more ways then one.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

How about the spell halting play for at least 30 minutes (in high level parties) while all magic items and active spells are rolled for one by one to see if they are destroyed by the disjunction? And then the subsequent adjusting of all the stats when players try to account for their lost gear. It's just a headache for DM and player alike.

The only DM's I see use the spell are those who are playing a kind of competitive game with their players, or those who use it as a cheap device to instill fear in their players.

It's a game-stopper spell. In more ways then one.

I understand your point; in fact, I've suggested various house rules for Disjunction earlier, as I'm concerned with the time consuming effect of the spell much like you. I also think, though, that banning disjunction from the game just to assure players will not cry over the magic items they've been farming from dungeons for the last year is not reasonable.

As a DM, I try to accommodate my own style to the playing style of the other people, but I also build my own expectations about players I'd like to DM for, and my ideal players should envision lots of things in my game that are more important or interesting than having +5 swords.

Thinking of playing style, I know that I'd not use Disjunction while DMing to the people here who have already shown their hatred of the spell, but the assumption that "The only DM's I see use the spell are those who are playing a kind of competitive game with their players, or those who use it as a cheap device to instill fear in their players" is also false, because it makes it seem like the only existing play style is one focused in accumulating magic items and boosting combat abilities.

 

[Quartz]

How about the spell halting play for at least 30 minutes (in high level parties) while all magic items and active spells are rolled for one by one to see if they are destroyed by the disjunction? And then the subsequent adjusting of all the stats when players try to account for their lost gear. It's just a headache for DM and player alike.

Can I suggest you need to be better organised? As mentioned earlier in the thread, a simple remedy is to have a sheet of d20 rolls pre-rolled so you just tick them off in turn. You should also have a list of all the players' items and spells in effect. And recalculating stats etc is hardly difficult and can be readily done by the player while others have their turn.

 

[Quartz]

the assumption that "The only DM's I see use the spell are those who are playing a kind of competitive game with their players, or those who use it as a cheap device to instill fear in their players" is also false, because it makes it seem like the only existing play style is one focused in accumulating magic items and boosting combat abilities.

QFT

 

[Slaved]

Disjunction is simply a series of unreasonable abilities in a single spell.

Look at the progression for spells.

First we have dispel magic which hits a single target for a chance at each of the spells on it, or it can hit a 20' radius area and possibly take out a single effect from each creature in the effect, or it can try to counterspell. Each of these effects maxes out at +10 to the check.

Next we have greater dispel magic which does the same but with a cap of +20. It can also act as a remove curse spell.

These are 3rd level and 6th level respectively normally.

At 9th we come upon disjunction. It works in a 40' radius burst, so it effects 4x the area of the other dispels. Spells in this area are automatically dispelled, no check. It actually destroys magical items in its area, although at least those get a save. It can kill an antimagic field, if it succeeds then those in the area are subjected to the disjunction. It can destroy artifacts.

This is not a step up like dispel to greater dispel, it is leaps and bound above.

I feel that removing the spells automatically is unreasonable, especially in such a large area.

I feel that destroying so many items at once potentially is unreasonable. Most effects can only kill one item at a time potentially, being able to destroy a nearly unlimited number at once is not reasonable.

I feel that destroying artifacts is unreasonable. Artifacts are special and should only be able to be destroyed in a special way. Preferably through a difficult quest.


For this spell to be reasonable I think it should be something like this:
Chance to destroy antimagic field.
Chance to dispel each spell in the area with a higher cap than greater dispel magic but with a smaller radius.
Work as break enchantment but with a higher level of potential effect.
Work as remove curse.
Chance to surpress the abilities of artifacts in the area for d4 rounds.


This is much weaker than the regular disjunction but it still much stronger than greater dispel magic. It is even a much larger jump from greater dispel magic to disjunction than it was from dispel to greater dispel.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

And it doesn't sound like a 9th level spell for me.

Besides, magic in D&D was never meant to follow a fair progression. At 9th level, a cleric goes from the ability to heal 4d8+8 damage to a target to the ability to raise that same target from the dead. Seems logical? I don't think so...

cheers,

 

[Victim]

And it doesn't sound like a 9th level spell for me.

Besides, magic in D&D was never meant to follow a fair progression. At 9th level, a cleric goes from the ability to heal 4d8+8 damage to a target to the ability to raise that same target from the dead. Seems logical? I don't think so...

cheers,

No, he gets AoE healing at 9th level, not cure critical. Also, considering the problems of Raise Dead, keeping people alive is generally much better than Raising them. So the distinction is hardly clear cut. On the other hand, Disjunction seems out of line compared to other 9th level spells.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

No, he gets AoE healing at 9th level, not cure critical. Also, considering the problems of Raise Dead, keeping people alive is generally much better than Raising them. So the distinction is hardly clear cut. On the other hand, Disjunction seems out of line compared to other 9th level spells.

As I said, he's going from cure critical, not to it... And he learns to use magic to bring back the dead; I don't know how much of a problem being dead really is (no big deal in D&D, I believe), but being able to raise people is generally better than just being able to heal them as long as they are still above the -10.

Also, I don't think that Disjunction is more powerful than other 9th level spells, is just that death appears to mean nothing at that level, and the D&D system relies on equipment instead of personal power to provide game balance, but the main concept (the supreme dispel) is perfectly in line with the kind of things I would expect from wizards who can kill with a word, imprison (which happens to be more scary than death), and grant wishes (even if they're now very limited, when compared to the open-ended version of 2E).

Cheers,