Why the fear and hatred of Disjunction?

[Quartz]

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.

I disagree. As long as the Clone is created before the caster casts Disjunction, then it's a copy of him at that time, not when he loses all spellcasting ability.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I disagree. As long as the Clone is created before the caster casts Disjunction, then it's a copy of him at that time, not when he loses all spellcasting ability.

The spell explicitly states "In other respects, treat the clone as if it were the original character raised from the dead..." If you lose all your spell casting abilities, are killed, then get a raise dead, do you have your spell casting abilities? No.

 

[Bad Paper]

A group of LG PCs might not care about having a 'communal wealth pot' or whatever, where they make sure the one PC who lost a lot gets something from the rest.

but they would care about continuing the fight for Goodness and whatnot, and it's hard to do that with a big fat unequipped liability on their team.

But, Chaotic PCs, even good ones, care more about themselves than the group.

um, I think it's time you reviewed the difference between chaotic and evil.

There is no "illogic" (KarinsDad's word) in shoring up resources to pound the living crap out of your enemies.

Remind me to never go mountaineering with you guys. I can't imagine you sharing if the bears get my food. We'd just stand around yelling, "Unfair! Unfair!"

 

[Stalker0]

Anti-Magic is a far better strategy than Mord's Disjunction.

Some party members will have very high will saves and their buffs and magic items will survive mostly intact (Clerics, Paladins, etc.). For other PCs, they'll still have some surviving items.

Anti-Magic, however, means none of their magic items and spells work.

So let me get this straight. As a wizard, you would rather cast a spell, that is centered on you, and run off into a group of adventurers with their beefy fighter to turn off their magic. So now they have no magic. And neither do you. So the fighter rips you in two, and you have no way to escape because all your magic is gone.

Vs.

Casting from a distance (at 17th level, you can hit people from 105 feet away) that doesn't hurt you in the least, and will take away all of their buffs and will take away ALL of their items (for a limited time), with the possibility of taking some of those items out permanently. So now the opposing party has very little magic, and you have the full range of your powers to flex.

I can't see how antimagic field is a good strategy for a wizard unless he is facing another single wizard.

 

[KarinsDad]

There is no "illogic" (KarinsDad's word) in shoring up resources to pound the living crap out of your enemies.

Remind me to never go mountaineering with you guys. I can't imagine you sharing if the bears get my food. We'd just stand around yelling, "Unfair! Unfair!"

Not too far out of context.

We are discussing near replacement costs here, not shoring up resources.

It's one thing to give the 15th level Paladin the "lowly nobody in the party wants" +2 Longsword, even though he used to carry a +5 Holy Longsword. It's another for the party to chip in nearly 100,000 GP to replace his +5 Holy Longsword.

A CG PC could easily vote to do the first and still refuse to do the second and still be a good character and still be shoring up resources.

 

[Artoomis]

...A CG PC could easily vote to do the first and still refuse to do the second and still be a good character and still be shoring up resources.

Sure, and a chaotic and/or evil person could give up lots of cash to shore up the PC who lost expensive items in the interests of his own survival.

 

[Endur]

I can't see how antimagic field is a good strategy for a wizard unless he is facing another single wizard.

Well, to tell the truth, I was thinking about having two beholders catch the party in an amf crossfire, dropping walls of stone and iron to prevent the party from leaving the amf area, and sending in some mountain giants to take care of the party.

But there are various ways of utilizing the 6th level amf field for a comparable amount of fun.

 

[Quartz]

I can't see how antimagic field is a good strategy for a wizard unless he is facing another single wizard.

In combination with other spells, and particularly traps, it can be a killer. For example, cast Antimagic Field in a room. Better, though, is to arrange for the room to be previously enchanted. When the PCs enter, cast the spell, leave, and seal the doors and conjure Death Fog from outside the AMF. Because it's a conjuration, the fog itself isn't affected by AMS. If you can't cast Death Fog, simply acquire some other suitable gaseous poison.

 

[KarinsDad]

In combination with other spells, and particularly traps, it can be a killer. For example, cast Antimagic Field in a room. Better, though, is to arrange for the room to be previously enchanted. When the PCs enter, cast the spell, leave, and seal the doors and conjure Death Fog from outside the AMF. Because it's a conjuration, the fog itself isn't affected by AMS. If you can't cast Death Fog, simply acquire some other suitable gaseous poison.

This is inaccurate.

Death Fog has a duration. Only Instantaneous Conjuration Creation spells are not affected by AMF, not ones with a duration.

 

[Stalker0]

And also keep in mind, that by the book AMF is centered on you. There is no casting it and leaving the room. Now a trap of it I could see, but now we are talking about the effectiveness of a trap vs the effectiveness of a spell. That's a different ball game.

If I am a big wizard, and a big party has just crashed my pad, gone through the basic traps, and is coming to get me, what would I use? Disjunction in a heartbeat.