PDA

View Full Version : Disjunction's Bad Side



Babale
2009-10-04, 12:38 PM
I was wondering: Has anyone ever actually lost their spellcasting powers due to casting a Disjunction on an artifact? And if so, what happened next?

woodenbandman
2009-10-04, 12:43 PM
Disjunction has sides other than bad?

Keld Denar
2009-10-04, 12:45 PM
Yea...Disjunction allowed in a game is mutually assured destruction. Whoever pushes their little red button first may win, but everyone loses in the end.

Myou
2009-10-04, 01:20 PM
Yea...Disjunction allowed in a game is mutually assured destruction. Whoever pushes their little red button first may win, but everyone loses in the end.

What if you're against an enemy who doesn't rely on magic items, like a VoP druid?

Lycanthromancer
2009-10-04, 01:23 PM
What if you're against an enemy who doesn't rely on magic items, like a VoP druid?Then why would you use disjunction?

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-10-04, 01:25 PM
Yea...Disjunction allowed in a game is mutually assured destruction. Whoever pushes their little red button first may win, but everyone loses in the end.

I allow an altered version in my games, a multi-function version like the dispel line. One version is simply an AoE auto-dispel that can remove antimagic fields, doesn't do anything to/about items. Version two is targeted on a single touched magic item, takes 1 minute to cast, and utterly disjoins it, up to and including artifacts. This lets disjunction accomplish its two primary functions (i.e. "Holy crap, his CL is too high for greater dispel but we need to get rid of his buffs!" and "Holy crap, evil intelligent item/artifact, we need to destroy it!") without screwing the caster by doing both at once.

The RAW version, though, doesn't exist at my table.

Myou
2009-10-04, 01:25 PM
Then why would you use disjunction?

Because he's got a dozen buffs?


I allow an altered version in my games, a multi-function version like the dispel line. One version is simply an AoE auto-dispel that can remove antimagic fields, doesn't do anything to/about items. Version two is targeted on a single touched magic item, takes 1 minute to cast, and utterly disjoins it, up to and including artifacts. This lets disjunction accomplish its two primary functions (i.e. "Holy crap, his CL is too high for greater dispel but we need to get rid of his buffs!" and "Holy crap, evil intelligent item/artifact, we need to destroy it!") without screwing the caster by doing both at once.

The RAW version, though, doesn't exist at my table.

Oooh, that's really good, I must steal it!

ericgrau
2009-10-04, 01:28 PM
You know magic items do get a save, and the better ones have better saves. If you played a caster that relied on no-save spells (and there are plenty if you count utility buffs), and let your spell save DC fall into suckage, it might work out. You screw your enemy's buffs royally and filter out the trash items at the same time, except for some bad luck here and there.

Oslecamo
2009-10-04, 01:30 PM
Disjuction is perfectly aceptable if you pretend that everybody makes their items saves, thus creating a super dispel magic that may breack AMF.

And hey, I tought that only fighters needed items. Why are the wizard and cleric so afraid of losing their items if they're suposed to be so item independant? Or perhaps, they also need their magic trinkets as much as everybody else:smalltongue:

EDIT:Another possibility is for the DM to allow wish abuse. Now the players can get as much toys as they want, with time being the only limit(anyone wishing for more wishes dies horribly), but they'll be gone in an hearbeat as the monsters open the fight with disjuction.

ericgrau
2009-10-04, 01:32 PM
They do, but not as much. Plus his party members will get mad at him too.

Grumman
2009-10-04, 01:38 PM
And hey, I tought that only fighters needed items. Why are the wizard and cleric so afraid of losing their items if they're suposed to be so item independant? Or perhaps, they also need their magic trinkets as much as everybody else:smalltongue:
I don't need my computer, but I'd still be pissed at anyone who threatened to break it. Given that no high-level wizard is going to carry their half million GP in mundane items, they're going to be a bit unhappy if someone disjoins their valuables into worthlessness.

Ponce
2009-10-04, 01:38 PM
I cast disjunction on a pseud-god of abjuration, once.

The character was an abjurer.

Its the only time I've ever seen disjunction used.

He had (several) artifacts on him, so needless to say, I lost my spellcasting ability.

It was the last session of the campaign, too, the character ascended to godhood (most powerful abjurer... left alive), thus all spellcasting ability was restored (not that it mattered since the campaign ended there anyway).

Therefore, all empirical evidence indicates that disjunction is TOTALLY AWESOME AND SHOULD ALWAYS BE USED ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS.

Shinizak
2009-10-04, 01:43 PM
Ever sinceThis (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0636.html) comic I've house ruled that disjunction is a ray.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-10-04, 01:46 PM
Here's my houserule on MDJ:

This is a powerful magical-negating spell, which has three possible uses:

1) It can be used to counter an AMF. If it is used for this purpose, then the AMF pops, but nothing else happens.

2) Dispel. All spells and spell-like abilities currently active on target are dispelled. Magic items are not affected.

3) Can be used to repress magic items. Items which fail their Will save are repressed and cease to function for one minute per caster level. Artifacts cannot be repressed by this spell.

Jack_Simth
2009-10-04, 01:54 PM
I was wondering: Has anyone ever actually lost their spellcasting powers due to casting a Disjunction on an artifact? And if so, what happened next?
You retire the character. Seriously: He's now a commoner with a good will save and a lot of skill ranks. At best, he can use magic items.

Seriously, though: You don't use Disjunction, and artifacts aren't the reason. You don't use disjunction because
1) It destroys loot.
2) Once you've started down that path, your DM will use it on you.
3) It destroys your magic items.
4) There's a massive bookkeeping problem when you need to stop and recalculate AC, saves, and skills for the entire party when you suddenly don't have your normal complement of buffs up.

Chained Greater Dispel Magic? Sure. Disjunction? No.

Oslecamo
2009-10-04, 02:07 PM
I don't need my computer, but I'd still be pissed at anyone who threatened to break it. Given that no high-level wizard is going to carry their half million GP in mundane items, they're going to be a bit unhappy if someone disjoins their valuables into worthlessness.

I would also be pissed off if somebody killed me even if ressurection was possible, yet most players seem death like a little bump on the road once you reach mid levels.

So, you value your trinkets more than your own life? Would you take a shot from a bandit trying to breack your computer knowing that there was an high chance the hospital could patch you up, with the new computer bill being higher than the hospital treatment(plus the possibility of losing all your info on the computer)?

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-04, 02:16 PM
The death bill (counting) XP is less than Disjunction. Possibly more than Sunder, but eh. Disjunction, at those levels, kills 90% or so of your wealth. Death kills less than 10% of your levels, and less than 3% or so of your total XP. "Trinkets" become quite important when they're half of what's keeping your many enemies from slaughtering you.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-04, 02:20 PM
I cast disjunction on a pseud-god of abjuration, once.

The character was an abjurer.

Its the only time I've ever seen disjunction used.

He had (several) artifacts on him, so needless to say, I lost my spellcasting ability.

It was the last session of the campaign, too, the character ascended to godhood (most powerful abjurer... left alive), thus all spellcasting ability was restored (not that it mattered since the campaign ended there anyway).

Therefore, all empirical evidence indicates that disjunction is TOTALLY AWESOME AND SHOULD ALWAYS BE USED ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS.

Even if you ascended you lost your magic since you can't heal yourself without magic.
If another got cured you then you'd have your god magic.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-04, 02:21 PM
Even if you ascended you lost your magic since you can't heal yourself without magic.

Plot power gave him his spells back.

Zeta Kai
2009-10-04, 02:33 PM
I allow an altered version in my games, a multi-function version like the dispel line. One version is simply an AoE auto-dispel that can remove antimagic fields, doesn't do anything to/about items. Version two is targeted on a single touched magic item, takes 1 minute to cast, and utterly disjoins it, up to and including artifacts. This lets disjunction accomplish its two primary functions (i.e. "Holy crap, his CL is too high for greater dispel but we need to get rid of his buffs!" and "Holy crap, evil intelligent item/artifact, we need to destroy it!") without screwing the caster by doing both at once.

Do you have this version written up? It sounds like I'd prefer your version to the RAW one.

Keld Denar
2009-10-04, 02:35 PM
Plot power can give your loot back, but its still a horrible inconvenience and a ton of book keeping to manage getting disjoined on a regular basis from ~level 14-15 on (About the level range at which you could start seeing 17th level spellcasters in your CR range).

taltamir
2009-10-04, 02:35 PM
I have a theory... I think disjunction was put into the game by WOTC as a metaphor for nuclear warfare... and to teach us why total annihilation of everyone and everything is a bad thing...

Keld Denar
2009-10-04, 02:40 PM
Hence my reference to MAD (mutually assured destruction) in the 3rd post in this thread? I think so!

Starscream
2009-10-04, 02:43 PM
I have a theory... I think disjunction was put into the game by WOTC as a metaphor for nuclear warfare... and to teach us why total annihilation of everyone and everything is a bad thing...

A strange spell. The only way to win is to not cast it.

I just ban Disjunction outright. Players never use it, because they will destroy the loot they would otherwise get when they win.

And using it against players is just mean, unless they've somehow acquired some completely broken items, in which case shame on you for letting them.

I just allow Greater Dispel to affect things that normally require Disjunction. It's the simplest fix I could come up with.

Deth Muncher
2009-10-04, 04:23 PM
Making reference to nuclear weapons again, I think it's probably the kind of thing that'd be used much as the US did back in the day: to show people who's boss. Like, yes, it's a pretty horrible move by the DM, but if the players feel too safe and like they can do whatever they want? They need to be reminded they're not immortal. Unless they are, of course.

Conversely, if the PCs are going up against an ubercaster boss, they might kinda want to prepare a MDJ as backup. Do they really WANT to use it and fry all their loot? No, likely not. But if this ubercaster is raping them so badly that the only way to survive is to strip him of his buffs? Well, I mean, cmon. Necessity over greed. You can't take stuff from someone if you're dead.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-10-04, 04:30 PM
Do you have this version written up? It sounds like I'd prefer your version to the RAW one.

It's basically as I described it before, with a few other minor tweaks, but here you go.

Mordenkainen's Disjunction
Abjuration
Level: Magic 9, Sor/Wiz 9
Components: V
Casting Time: See text
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Area: All magical effects within a 40-ft.-radius burst, or one magic item
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: See text
Spell Resistance: No

You can choose to use it in one of two ways, an area disjoining or a targeted disjoining.

Area Disjoining
This version of the spell has a casting time of 1 standard action. All magical effects within the radius of the spell, except for those that you carry or touch, are disjoined--that is, spells and spell-like effects are separated into their individual components (ending the effect as a dispel magic spell does). You also have a 2% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic field. If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items within it are disjoined.

Targeted Disjoining
This version of the spell has a casting time of 1 minute. While casting this version of the spell, you must be touching a single magic item that will be the target of the spell; when the spell is completed, that item is turned into a normal item, permanently losing any and all magical properties. An item in a creatureís possession may make a Will save to avoid disjunction (using its own Will save bonus or its possessorís Will save bonus, whichever is higher), but an unattended magic item receives no save.

Even artifacts are subject to disjunction, though there is only a 1% chance per caster level of actually affecting such powerful items. Destroying artifacts is a dangerous business, and it is 95% likely to attract the attention of some powerful being who has an interest in or connection with the device.

PinkysBrain
2009-10-04, 04:36 PM
There is deathwards against fort SoDs, mindblank against will SoDs ... what protection is there against disjunction for the low will save classes? Bugger all. The DM is effectively telling you ... just reroll a caster, I'm a firm believer that you can't have nice things otherwise.

Personally I'd be inclined to oblige him, if it's the only way to get nice things so be it.

Grumman
2009-10-04, 04:43 PM
I would also be pissed off if somebody killed me even if ressurection was possible, yet most players seem death like a little bump on the road once you reach mid levels.
First off, death is a little bump in the road at high levels, if someone recovers your body. A scroll of True Resurrection costs less than 30,000 gp. Compare that to how much a disjunction can destroy.

Second, you are ignoring a vital piece of information: the player is the one that considers disjunction a greater setback than death. No matter how accurately they role-play the character's fear of death, the player is not going to share that fear.