Why the fear and hatred of Disjunction?

[Nail]

AMF is a cleric spell, really. Clerics are tough enough to take a bit of unbuffed combat while their Ftr friends make hash out of the Githyanki Lich Queen.....err, I guess this tactic can be used on other opponents.

It was just so much fun to take down all of her tactics and defences

Spoiler

including the auto-teleport of all of her items upon her death

in one fell swoop. Epic Level? Epic Push-over.

....I'm off on a tangent, aren't I?

 

[Jhulae]

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.

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

Nope, I don't think so.

Lawful alignments (good through evil) are much more group oriented, hence the 'lawful', as most societies have laws that must be obeyed (even evil ones). This includes a group of PCs who, if they're all lawful, may indeed have some kind of charter. A LE PC might give up some equipment, but as for giving up XP? The most powerful are usually the ones ruling in an LE society, and giving up XP for someone else *definitely* diminishes one's personal power moreso than losing objects (as more goods can always be acquired).

Chaotic alignments are much more individual oriented (hence, selfish). CE may take this to absolute extremes, but even CG could care less about the law, especially if it infringes upon them. Now, a CG character may feel bad and give his buddy fighter some of his loot, but, the're still more interested in themselves, especially if someone tells them they *have* to give stuff up (something *any* chaotic character should chafe at).

 

[shilsen]

Nope, I don't think so.

Lawful alignments (good through evil) are much more group oriented, hence the 'lawful', as most societies have laws that must be obeyed (even evil ones). This includes a group of PCs who, if they're all lawful, may indeed have some kind of charter. A LE PC might give up some equipment, but as for giving up XP? The most powerful are usually the ones ruling in an LE society, and giving up XP for someone else *definitely* diminishes one's personal power moreso than losing objects (as more goods can always be acquired).

Chaotic alignments are much more individual oriented (hence, selfish). CE may take this to absolute extremes, but even CG could care less about the law, especially if it infringes upon them. Now, a CG character may feel bad and give his buddy fighter some of his loot, but, the're still more interested in themselves, especially if someone tells them they *have* to give stuff up (something *any* chaotic character should chafe at).

That's a pretty simplistic reading. Sure, the above could be apply to some Lawful and Chaotic characters, but it hardly applies to all (or, I'd argue, most) of them.

Being Lawful and Chaotic is just as much about consistency/change (and arguably more so) than about the group vs. the individual. A character could be intensely individualistic and be completely Lawful in that he has a strong personal code that he follows consistently (see the description of LN in the PHB). Another character could be very devoted to his friends and family and completely Chaotic, due to the mercurial way in which he shows his devotion.

And, of course, the above is just a couple of possibilities among many. Every alignment has a lot of variation within it.

 

[KarinsDad]

AMF is a cleric spell, really. Clerics are tough enough to take a bit of unbuffed combat while their Ftr friends make hash out of the Githyanki Lich Queen.....err, I guess this tactic can be used on other opponents.

It was just so much fun to take down all of her tactics and defences

Spoiler

including the auto-teleport of all of her items upon her death

in one fell swoop. Epic Level? Epic Push-over.

....I'm off on a tangent, aren't I?

It's doubly cool when a high level Cleric of Mystra can also cast spells in an AMF (guess which way I went for that new campaign Nail).

 

[KarinsDad]

And, of course, the above is just a couple of possibilities among many. Every alignment has a lot of variation within it.

Which gets us right back to what started all of this: Not all PCs, even good PCs, would necessarily go out of their way to reimburse one PC who lost many items. They may backfill none, some, or all of the items, depending on the makeup of the individual PCs involved and regardless, they could still be good PCs. Even Lawful Good PCs might backfill none of the items if they had an agreement that all wealth is initially split up equally (and hence, backfilling would be an inequal splitting of wealth). Or, a LG PC might view such loss as their Deity's will. These generalizations of how Good PCs must act with regard to charity or comradeship are merely that: generalizations.

 

[Elemental]

Finally, a 9th level spell that seems powerful. And people think it's bad? And to answer your question: Wish. As it seems DM use that to mess with players more then any other spell.

Imprisonment, Gate and Miracle aren't powerful? Uh-huh. And powerful though they are, none of them have the permanent crippling ability of MDJ.

Bringing in Wish is a non sequitur. Wish will screw the players if the DM chooses to have it screw the players or if they go beyond the clearly stated safe limits. MDJ will screw the players if it's used as written. And remember which spell has the 5000 XP cost.

How many times do first level characters accidently stumble into a 10th level dungeon? Since that realrey if ever happens there must be some way people can tell. I know the reason is because of the meta game, but there is no reason PCs can't research it and find what they are looking for.

The spell? The idea that there are going to be easy encounters in a game? The players whining?

So why are these PC's facing great challenges when they could just be beating up level 10 parties and taking their stuff, all the time? Maybe if the world operates like an MMORPG, where there are zones designated for certain levels.

Then you failed. Nothing wrong with that.

I literally cannot understand this mindset. Better to scrap a whole campaign that was going brilliantly up until the Disjunction, then houserule a broken spell?


In discussions about broken spells, there usually seem to be two schools of thought:

1: Houserule it.

2: Wildly exaggerate every possible disadvantage ("Gee, that NPC was carrying an artifact around too?") and make up some completely new ones to make the spell as impractical as possible without actually changing it.

Heck, I remember when people were arguing 3.0 Harm was balanced because of course, every enemy would be carrying around a Ring of Counterspells and have access to the spell themselves.

 

[Particle_Man]

Chaotic alignments are much more individual oriented (hence, selfish). CE may take this to absolute extremes, but even CG could care less about the law, especially if it infringes upon them. Now, a CG character may feel bad and give his buddy fighter some of his loot, but, the're still more interested in themselves, especially if someone tells them they *have* to give stuff up (something *any* chaotic character should chafe at).

Actually, Chaotic means individuality in *style*, not selfishness. A chaotic good character might give someone else *more* than their "fair" share, based on what the chaotic good character thinks the other person needs.

In D&D, it is "evil", not "chaotic", that is explicitly defined as selfish.

 

[Artoomis]

Actually, Chaotic means individuality in *style*, not selfishness. A chaotic good character might give someone else *more* than their "fair" share, based on what the chaotic good character thinks the other person needs.

In D&D, it is "evil", not "chaotic", that is explicitly defined as selfish.

Well, it does help to keep in mind:

Personal survival is generally important to ANY alignment - though for varous reasons. In addition, there is an issue with PCs that does not exists with NPCs - the PLAYERS have to get along, too. This generally means a minimum level of cooperation in a group, regardless of alignment or other personal PC motivations. If a PC is nuetered by the loss of equipment, it would be suicidal, in most cases, to allow that state of ineffectiveness to remain for very long.

On another note:

MD is only going to trash SOME equipment, not ALL. Traditionally, D&D has minor artifacts in the hands of most high-level PCs, so most high level wizards should be afraid to even use it except in very extreme cases, making it not a problem.

If MD is being used frequently in a campaign this is DM problem, not a spell problem. The spell is one that should be generally very rarely encountered, but it is a good one to have in the game. It is GOOD for players to be afraid of a spell being used.

Using it once will NOT break a campaign. Some equipment will be lost. Oh, cry me a river.

 

[Artoomis]

Imprisonment, Gate and Miracle aren't powerful? Uh-huh. And powerful though they are, none of them have the permanent crippling ability of MDJ.

TEMPORARY crippling ability (except for the caster). Losing equipment is temporary. It may not be easy to replace, it may not even be replacable with an identical item, but, in teh end, it is really just equipment that can be replaced.

...I literally cannot understand this mindset. Better to scrap a whole campaign that was going brilliantly up until the Disjunction, then houserule a broken spell?

Ever hear the expression: "Sometimes the dragon wins?" The game is less fun if some great peril is not faced, and sometimes the PCs lose. They may even lose and not save the world. So be it. Not everything should be pre-ordained to a PC victory. TPKs happen.

In discussions about broken spells, there usually seem to be two schools of thought:

This one is NOT broken

It's fine to not use it in your campaign, or to replace it with a toned-down version that gets used more often. These are certainly valid DM choices. In fact, with an atypical campaign that has very, very few artifacts, even minor ones, the risk factor for casting MD goes way down and the spell becomes a bit too strong due to lack of a presumed balancing factor.

The PHB is based upon a world where minor artifacts are fairly common for characters who can cast 9th-level spells (. If your world is not like that, you should adjust MD accordingly.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Crothian]

Imprisonment, Gate and Miracle aren't powerful? Uh-huh. And powerful though they are, none of them have the permanent crippling ability of MDJ.

Either does MDJ unless for some reason the players are not able to ever reequip themselves. It gives them a temporary set back only.

So why are these PC's facing great challenges when they could just be beating up level 10 parties and taking their stuff, all the time? Maybe if the world operates like an MMORPG, where there are zones designated for certain levels.

This is a situation that can only be handled in a campaign. While there are not zones per say in a RPG there are places for parties of different levels. It is a huge meta gameing thing that parties always seem to find an advneture that is abotu the right level for them. I'm just sayting that in a game there is no reason an 18th level party has to always face 18 CR encounters. And if they research and investigate they should be able to find an dungeon that is easy for them.

I literally cannot understand this mindset. Better to scrap a whole campaign that was going brilliantly up until the Disjunction, then houserule a broken spell?

So, there should be no chance that the PCs ever fail? Failure is a pretty easy concept to understand and who says that has to be the end of the campaign. BBEG wins, but the PCs are not dead. They are in a tougher position but the campaign can go on.

In discussions about broken spells, there usually seem to be two schools of thought:

1: Houserule it.

2: Wildly exaggerate every possible disadvantage ("Gee, that NPC was carrying an artifact around too?") and make up some completely new ones to make the spell as impractical as possible without actually changing it.

I like how you insult people who disagree with you claiming there's is wildly exagerated. If you want to go house rule the spell, that's another forum.