Why the fear and hatred of Disjunction?

[KarinsDad]

Yes, the game is losing something important. What would I say to a player when he asked me how to undo a magic item?

I'd tell him Sunder or Empowered Maximized Scorching Ray (or even changed to Acid).

He'd say: "you know, this kind of thing keeps happening in fantasy stories, characters should have a way to destroy that evil sword..."

Keeps happening?

I cannot think of a single fantasy story where multiple items on multiple opponents got destroyed with a single spell. In fact, I cannot think of a single fantasy story where multiple items get destroyed on a single opponent with a single spell.

This player quote of yours does not sound realistic.

The fact that MD troubles the math of your games should not be used to ignore the fact that it still covers meaningful territory in fantasy, and D&D is a fantasy game after all.

Meaningful?

Quote a fantasy fictional novel where multiple items from multiple opponents get destroyed with a single spell. Preferably, a non-DND novel, but I'll settle for a DND one if that is all you have.

I think you are not being impartial here and vastly overemphasizing the importance of this concept in fantasy fiction.


In fact, changing the spell to a single item, possibly making it difficult for the item to save (maybe making it a % based on the power of the item as opposed to a saving throw typically based on the user) might balance out this spell.

 

[Artoomis]

...If MD is being thrown around, the DM is already handling extremely high level NPCs...

If "MD is being thrown around" there ought to be a fair number of retired archmages with no spellcasting abilities.

I should think that alone to be sufficient disincentive to cast this spell. Thus keeping it as a reserve, desperate situation, emergency-only spell. Heck, the potential personal results for the caster are worse than death, which in D&D amy be only temporary.

In games I have run I have used it exactly once when a very overconfident NPC used it on the PCs. Its effects were not as bad as I thought they would be (many successful saving throws), but an artifact was "disjoined" and the caster lost all spellcasting abilities.

I don't think after that than any PC would have even considered using MD himself.

 

[Slaved]

QUOTE=Artoomis]If "MD is being thrown around" there ought to be a fair number of retired archmages with no spellcasting abilities.[/QUOTE]

Are artifacts really that common in your experience? Even if they are it is pretty likely that there is a less than 1% chance of losing spellcasting abilities. After that it is possible that the powerful being that is called could be happy that it is gone and either restore your spellcasting or send you on a quest to get it back.

People were talking about how easy it was simply to make a quest to get back equipment. That makes it sound like it should be easy enough to get a quest to restore the lost ability.

I personally have not seen artifacts to be that common. It would be interesting I suppose if every threat that came across a party had one though. At some point artifacts become common, especially if the party is already carrying around a few dozen. Does that sound like a typical campaign?

 

[Quartz]

It's actually very easy to get around the 'lose all spellcasting' lmitation: have a clone ready. And in the interim, you can still use wands and other magic items.

 

[Seeten]

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.

The worst part here is not that the fighter is put out by having this low will save, its that the fighter depends on his gear, and so, not only could the cleric do fine without his gear(although gear is nice for clerics, too) the fighter cannot do without his gear, and, is most likely to lose it.

You know, its stuff, and DM's like this, that cause me to keep rolling wizards, and clerics. Heh.

I trust some of the DM's on this thread to understand wealth by level and CR's, but our DM's locally "Like low magic worlds" and then use the same MM creatures with save or dies, and DR and whatnot, and we have no magic items/whatever to overcome it. It gets ridiculous when you move into MD type spells, as the fighter loses everything, and will probably never recover. Ever.

 

[Seeten]

It's actually very easy to get around the 'lose all spellcasting' lmitation: have a clone ready. And in the interim, you can still use wands and other magic items.

I am pretty sure the "Caster loses all spellcasting" means the caster, and any clones he transfers his consciousness to. His consciousness is likely what holds the spellcasting abilities, not his fingers and toes.

 

[Endur]

It's funny how some people equate fiction with gaming. Gaming rarely goes the way of fiction unless the DM goes out of his way to railroad the storyline or creates a Deus Ex Machina situation (like the Axe of the Dwarven Lords example you just gave):

The difference is that fiction is totally created and under the control of the author whereas DND is a game created by all of the players at the table, not just the DM. If the DM has to go out of his way to contrive a situation such as the one you just described, I know I would typically be jarred out of my suspension of disbelief.

Gaming is a cooperative fiction environment. I agree that the DM should not contrive a situation so that it appears forced to the players. On the other hand, there is no reason why the example I gave would jar suspension of disbelief.

 

[Endur]

1. Disjunction's power seems to be out of proportion compared to other 9th level spells. Or not.

Circle of Death is a 6th level clerical/wizard spell, and it kills lots of people. Phantasmal Killer is a 4th level spell that slays the target. Death is worse than item loss. Conan never died, but he lost items many times.

2. Item destruction is fundamentally unfair, particularly in how it affects different character types. Or some people are big babies.

I don't have any problem with item destruction from a game mechanics perspective (as a player or as a gm). However, I think that story items should survive or be recoverable. i.e. Captain America's shield. If he loses his shield, there should be an opportunity to get another shield made or to repair the original shield.

3. Disjunction can have unfortunate effects on the story, either from the loss of a treasured item, or plausibility issues from treasure aquisition, etc. Or item destruction can be a launching pad for further stories or whatever.

I have no problems whatsoever in taking a party's treasure from it.

 

[Endur]

I once played an epic Barbarian that was almost totally immune to disjunction. His wealth was invested in items crafted from rare materials, lands, and gold. He was a King.

Was he perhaps less useful when 9th level spells and gates were tossed about and titans fought hither and yon, well, yes he was.

But when the Anti-Magic Globes and Disjunctions came out, he was well prepared to take the lead.

 

[Elemental]

1. Disjunction's power seems to be out of proportion compared to other 9th level spells. Or not.

Circle of Death is a 6th level clerical/wizard spell, and it kills lots of people. Phantasmal Killer is a 4th level spell that slays the target. Death is worse than item loss. Conan never died, but he lost items many times.

Raise Dead and the Resurrection spells solve this for a lesser overall cost than having to replace several valuable items at the high levels. Weird, yes, but it's how D&D works. Death is not worse than item loss for a high level D&D character.

It's telling that so many of the defences for Disjunction rely either on building a character specifically for surviving the spell, or throwing in complications such as having every enemy carrying round an artifact.

My proposed fix for MDJ: It acts as a targeted dispel on each character and magic item in the area, with an unlimited cap. It can still wreak havoc on a party through dispelling half their items and spells, but isn't the "screw you, you LOSE" measure it is now. And if it's a targeted spell, there are actually some ways to defend against it (Spell Turning, Absorption).

Removing permanent item loss won't really affect Disjunction's ability to take magic items and spells out of the fight, but makes the spell much less horribly unfair against PC's.