Why the fear and hatred of Disjunction?

[Slaved]

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...

That list of very impressive effects doesnt sound 9th level to you? As compared to what exactly? It still looks to be much more impressive than wish just not as versitile over all.

The spells you are comparing dont really have much in common though. On one hand you have a spell which can heal someone living from near death up to full health instantly vs another spell which can turn a formerly living, mostly intact object into an again living creature with a con loss or a level loss over the course of a minute with a 5k gp cost.

While they both the healing descriptor they have very different functions, time frames, and costs.

To compare healing of 4th to 5th you have cure critical at 4th and cure light mass at 5th. Raise dead is mostly by itself in its capacity and not directly comparable. I believe there is a spell of a lesser level somewhere that brings people back who have died a very short time before casting, perhaps you should compare it to that instead?


I think what you were going for though is that you expect spells to get better as levels increase, which is true, and they do. I made the comparison with dispel, greater dispel, and disjunction because I see them all following the same curve. Disjunction as it is now is so far outside of that curve though it is ridiculous. Even the version I put up as a fix is incredibly strong and a bit outside of the curve but at least it is more reasonable.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I think what you were going for though is that you expect spells to get better as levels increase, which is true, and they do. I made the comparison with dispel, greater dispel, and disjunction because I see them all following the same curve. Disjunction as it is now is so far outside of that curve though it is ridiculous. Even the version I put up as a fix is incredibly strong and a bit outside of the curve but at least it is more reasonable.

What I wanted to state is that D&D spells don't follow a logical curve.

Mass healing may be the direct comparison to critical healing, but my point is that from one level to the other we go from fairly potent healing (not enough to bring your fighter to full HP, I believe) to raising the dead (which some cultures would see as a miracle); and that's one miserable level. So, saying that disjunction is ridiculous because you'd expect something weaker only three levels above greater dispelling is not a reasonable point at the D&D system, since it never really cared about a logical progression of spell power.

Cheers,

 

[Slaved]

What I wanted to state is that D&D spells don't follow a logical curve.

Sure they do, all of the time. At its most basic spells get more powerful the higher up you go in levels. Sometimes they do not follow it well, but if you look at other spells of the same level and the spells of the level before you can judge about what it should be doing.

Disjunction is way over the top. The only spells I can think of offhand which are in the same ballpark are Gate and Shapechange, which are both overpowered as written as well.

Mass healing may be the direct comparison to critical healing, but my point is that from one level to the other we go from fairly potent healing (not enough to bring your fighter to full HP, I believe) to raising the dead (which some cultures would see as a miracle); and that's one miserable level.

But you are almost literally comparing apples to oranges. Those spells have completely different effects and different costs. One is a change of state with massive penalties and the other is a change of a variable number which only matters when it hits certain thresholds.

We have the progression for healing there. It gets stronger each level and at some point it jumps up to being weaker for healing individually but heals multiple people.

We also know about the time that being able to undo a certain status effect happens. 4th level is reincarnation and at 5th level we have raise dead, albeit for two seperate classes.

Hp recovery vs status change. They just aren't directly comparable here because you are switching effects and saying one is greater than the other. 4d8+9 could heal someone from -9 (the literal deaths door) up to full hp with a single touch and standard action for the lowly cost of a 4th level slot vs raise dead which takes a minute, 5k gp worth of diamond, a 5th level slot, and either a level or 2 constitution points from the subject. Very different costs, very different effects, completely different parts of the healing spectrum. The poor guy that just got raised likely wants someone to cast a hit point healing spell on him now as well.

So, saying that disjunction is ridiculous because you'd expect something weaker only three levels above greater dispelling is not a reasonable point at the D&D system, since it never really cared about a logical progression of spell power.

I listed my reasoning about why each was bad and how to fix them along with a reasoning about a progression that is more in line with other progressions. If you feel that the reasonings are imperfect that is fine, but there are progressions there and there are other effects to compare with about how to get them. Along with the costs associated with each.

For a single 9th level spell we would expect very impressive effects, but those effects should be balanced on what it costs. Being able to take out any number of items, spells already cast, and artifacts is simply much too much for a 9th level slot that is merely a standard action with no extraneous costs such as exp. It doesnt have a focus or a spell component either. If you don't care about selling opponents gear, and that should not be used as a balance reason either way, then the only reason to not use it is that you are worried about them having an artifact which will then have a 17% chance of being effected and then get a saving through to avoid the effect and then, if it works, you get a saving through to avoid the bad things happening to you.

What other spells even come close to being able to change the effective challenge rating of a party by such a large amount so easily?

 

[Quartz]

What other spells even come close to being able to change the effective challenge rating of a party by such a large amount so easily?

Wish can be far more effective in this. Likewise Anti-Magic Shell. Anti-magic Shell is only a 6th level spell too. Anti-Magic Shell + Death Fog (or any old poison gas) created outside the AMS and flowing down into it is a killer. At least for those who haven't bothered doing anything with their Fort saves.

As I've shown, a well-rounded character is going to be significantly resistant to Disjunction.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I totally agree with Slaved's analysis; mordenkainen's disjunction represents a big jump in power; clearly it is an epic spell somehow reassigned to 9th level. But it has lots of flavor, and I'd hate to replace it with just a superior dispel magic.

Two things that might help improve mage's disjunction are the following:

• Grant armor, shields and weapons a bonus to their save equal to their enhancement bonus (including special abilities). The +5 axiomatic longsword of speed thus gets +10. The barbarian wielding it might still fail the save, but in that case;
• Grant the item a secondary save 24 hours later. The item uses its own Will save vs DC 20. If it makes the save, it was only suppressed, not destroyed.

The first suggestion will tilt the field back toward the fighter types. I think it is especially important that weapons survive; without magical enhancements to overcome DR, a lot of creatures just can't be hit. (Well, you could use power attack. But if you have lost your weapon bonus and strength buffing items, you won't be able to hit the monster if you do that).

And while a fighter type who rolls poorly may lose a lot of items, there is a good chance that they will come back the next day. Items all have good saves (2 + CL/2) so a decent item should have a good chance of recovering. For instance, going by the price of a sunblade it is about a +5 equivalent. CL 10, so the base save is 7. Beating a 20 with a +12 bonus is fairly good odds. Better than losing it outright, anyway.

However, the DC 20 secondary save is high enough that a lot of loot would be in danger of being lost. Especially non-martial items that would be attractive to spellcasters. A periapt of wisdom +6 is only CL 8, so it has a +6 bonus vs DC 20. I think that PCs and NPCs would be hesitant to use the spell except in extreme circumstances. And that is for the good.

As for recalculating character sheets, people should know what their character is like with no spells cast on them. Changes from suppressed items shouldn't take that long to calculate.

 

[Slaved]

Wish can be far more effective in this.

Give a few examples please. I can see versitile, and said so earlier as it is definately better for other things, but more effective at what it does?

Spend 5k exp to get a +1 bonus to a stat or possibly ruin all of the enemies stat boosters all at once with no exp cost. Spend 5k exp to duplicate a lower level spell is likely only worth it in emergency situations. Spend 5k exp to get 25k gp worth of nonmagical stuff? That doesnt seem terribly effective generally. Create a magical item by spending 5k exp + 2*exp it would take to create the item is great for emergencies as well, but more effective?

Much more versitile, for that there can be no arguement, but disjunction is the king supreme of immediate destruction for a small relative cost.

As I've shown, a well-rounded character is going to be significantly resistant to Disjunction.

Well, lets see. A high level character is likely to have well over 20 magical items. If they have a 5% chance of failure for the save then they are losing at least one item on average. If that item happens to be something that they were really counting on, such as a fighter types primary weapon or armor, they they could be in major trouble.

In a party of 4 characters we are likely looking at atleast four items being destroyed. This could easily be several hundred thousand gp worth of items right away. Ouch! Wish costs the caster 5k exp in order to get its effects, disjunction could cost the opposition hundreds of thousands of gp and a huge amount of exp.

Plus there doesnt look to be any way to resist having all of your active spells disjoined. This basically neuters an entire type of build all at once without a chance for a save or being able to stop it.


All of these effects put together simply break part of the game in my opinion. Spells automatically dispelled for everyone in the opposing party is very bad. Chance of destroying a large amount of gear easily and thereby negating entire characters is very bad. Chance of destroying artifacts outside of the other rules for them is somewhat upsetting and outside of the normal flavor of the game, mortal magic and all that.

I just dont like it. I don't see any reason for it to be the way that it is. If it had a real cost associated with it maybe. Such as the caster loses exp for each item destroyed and for each spell dispelled, then at least it would be a tough call whether to do it or not.

 

[Slaved]

I totally agree with Slaved's analysis

Thanks!

I'd hate to replace it with just a superior dispel magic.

I can understand that, but there has to be some sort of cost for using it if it has all of those very powerful abilities rolled together.

It could have different modes which are able to get rid of different effects, just not all of them at once.

If it was targetted that would be a very large drawback as well.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I've never used the spell as a player or DM, in any incarnation of the game.

My personal take on the spell is its not so bad for the full spellcasters, but everyone else had best duck & cover...and use loaded dice!

Don't get me wrong- I understand the desire to have this kind of spell out there. I'm just not sure there is a way to have it be cast on a party and have a fun evening with the probable end results. I'm also not sure there's a good tweek for it.

Whoever it was who said its an Epic spell in disguise had the right of it.

The warrior archetype in 3.X is extremely gear dependent- nothing new there. This one spell could change a challenging encounter to a near TPK.

If, however, there were intrinsic ways warriors and other gear-dependent combatants could overcome DR and similar defenses, there wouldn't be as much of an issue. For example, if there were a Feat Tree that allowed the user to overcome DR, the loss of that +4 magic weapon wouldn't be as problematic. Sure, the warrior won't be able to hit as often as he could before the spell, but he won't be virtually powerless to control his fate.

Grapple & other special maneuvers? Have fun doing that against a spellslinging dragon, or a demon summoning his kin...

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Uh huh.

In fact, while the DM is at it, he might as well determine before the game even starts which items are destroyed and which are not. Then, he should hand out new character sheets with all of the new ability score and other calculations already made. Saves a lot of time.

While he's at it, he should probably just determine the entire session ahead of time and recite what happens to his players.

 

[Crothian]

Uh huh.

In fact, while the DM is at it, he might as well determine before the game even starts which items are destroyed and which are not. Then, he should hand out new character sheets with all of the new ability score and other calculations already made. Saves a lot of time.

While he's at it, he should probably just determine the entire session ahead of time and recite what happens to his players.

It is a long way from rolling a few dice ahead of time to predetermining the whole session for everyone. Rolling dice ahead of time changes nothing, except saving some time. (Unless you don't trust the DM and think he'll cheat. And if that's the case you have bigger issues). The other is total lack of player free will.

I think players that use a lot of buffs and lots of magical equipment need to be preapred for losing it assuming the game has ways to lose it. If a player slows down the game for an hour becasue he was not prepared then I'd treat it the same way for a player that has his spell list not prepared. I move ahead without him. Having players prepared is not out of the question in my mind. But again, different people have different play styles and that's cool.