Disjunction time!

[Ganorenas]

I DM for a group of seven:

Half-dragon whisper gnome Duskblade
Half-dragon Troll Cleric/Boneknight
Half-Nymph Grey Fire Elf Rogue/Assassin
Pumit(custom race) Spirit shaman/lion of Talisid
Half-Fiend human Black guard
Dream Dwarf Kinetisist
Half-Golem Dwarf Barbarian

... Lot of halves up there.
LA buy off was allowed, they are all between 15-17 in level.
The spirit shaman hit level 17. I warned them all from the beginning once level 17 was attained, if they fought someone with disjunction I would not hold it back if their group looks like it can kill the npc. They understood it. They accepted it.
(probably because of all the encounter breaking shenanigans I laughed through with them)

So, only one of them ever thinks to counter something when I warn them ahead of time. Are there counters to disjunction?
Anything they can use to avoid it? Anything they can grab or cast to negate it?

Thank you guys for the help!

*Disjunction is not going to be used on them immediately, I'm not that evil, and as stated, only if they seriously threaten one of the... (6?) casters in the game world able to cast it, excluding deities who won't need it. I don't like destroying their wealth unless I compensate for it in the same dungeon. I understand WBL is important for balance.

*The party has held itself admirably well against appropriate encounters using similar tactics, stronger enemies using less intelligent tactics, and weaker encounters using strong tactics. (this is just how they play, I meet them appropriately)

*I understand half-Golem is for DM use, but he made some very convincing arguments for using it, and has not been a problem with it. (He actually finds it as a major deficit when the party needs to teleport or quickly escape)

[Rubik]

There are a few.

Using an immediate action to either get out of range or out of the AoE, or to throw up a barrier of some sort. Similar things could be done with a raven familiar and a Tinfoil Hat. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129012)

Counterspell it.

"Counterspell" it by dealing a ton of damage to the caster such that he can't make the Concentration check.

A clasp of safeguarding (from Dungeonscape) is a one-time use protection for a single item that would be harmed on a failed save. Since Disjunction requires a Will save to destroy an item...

A seriously high Will save and the ability to reroll 1s.

[Deophaun]

Wings of cover (RoD). A nice second-level sorcerer only spell that blocks line of effect. So, your rogue could UMD a wand to protect himself.

[Ganorenas]

The Rogue should have enough ranks to use such a wand, thank you for the heads up =)

I am under the impression they need to "cast" disjunction in order to counter spell it (or does Greater dispel magic fit that niche also?)

I'd bet their most likely tactic would be to "counter spell" with damage, but defensive casting has happened to them before and no one has tried to counter that once they have money to spend or a feat to gain...

They do (for the most part) have great will saves, but none have the ability to re-roll dice of any sort. (or they have never used this ability)

None have familiars, so how would one gain the ability to use an immediate action to escape the effect?
-edit- I feel like I should use the tinfoil hat on them now!

Clasp of safe guarding is good, I'll look at it once I am at my books!

I recall reading that the half-golem only effects spells that target himself, so his gear is available for disjunction, is this correct?

A second question, the dusk blade dropped a fortune on a ring of spell turning, would this assist him in anyway? *nvm, it does not work on aoe spells

[Psyren]

I am under the impression they need to "cast" disjunction in order to counter spell it (or does Greater dispel magic fit that niche also?)

GDM can counter anything if they make the CL check. Disjunction will counter disjunction without needing a check.



I'd bet their most likely tactic would be to "counter spell" with damage, but defensive casting has happened to them before and no one has tried to counter that once they have money to spend or a feat to gain...

Defensive casting will only protect the caster from AoOs. If they all ready an action to pour damage on him (especially simultaneously) defensive casting won't do a thing there.



None have familiars, so how would one gain the ability to use an immediate action to escape the effect?

There's several ways, like Battlemagic Perception and Divine Defiance. Ring of Spell-Battle might help too. The psion can't counterspell traditionally but readying an action to disrupt is even easier for him between Synchronicity and Schism.

[Ganorenas]

So I should be careful for both counter spell and "counter spell" =)

I'm sure that the spirit shaman prepares G.Dispel at least once a day, so that will be available to them.

For the ring of spell-Battle, you are referring to the one in MiC? It definitely seems like a great buy at 12k (found using google, I am still afb). It is definitely something I would have expected the Cleric or Assassin to have picked up by now if they knew about it.

For Divine Defiance I am certain the cleric and Spirit shaman do not have that feat, though the cleric could pick it up (and would still have horrible caster level checks, but a use for rebuke undead)

Battle Magic preparation Seems like a great bet, but the spirit shaman is the only one with a caster level (and enough ranks in spell craft) to make the best of it, has it been added to their class spell list? If so, this would be available for them if they players took the time to find it and could save them. :smallsmile:

I imagine the psion would be all over "counter spelling" and do a good job at it... Because he is a psion (he hold the damage record at this time, 281 in one shot, I don't recall which power though, but it was electricity damage to a non-immune target).

[Nettlekid]

I think the most reliable way is to get out of the AoE. 40 ft is quite a wide spread, but not unmanageable. If in serious trouble, a caster could Celerity and use some teleportation effect to GTFO. Or using that Celerity, casting Wall of Stone or the like (make sure it's an instantaneous Conjuration so it's nonmagical and can't be Disjunctioned, although since Disjunction mentions that it ends spells as Dispel Magic I wonder if it can't break through Wall of Force as well) to break line of effect and protect all behind the wall. In that same token, a Tower Shield used for full cover would probably work too. Just make it nonmagical so there's nothing to lose. I'm assuming this isn't the case, but if the Barbarian had the ol' Barbarian's Celerity trick (Instantaneous Rage+Intimidating Rage+Imperious Command+a maxed out Intimidation check) he could terrify all enemies as an immediate action, stopping them from acting.

Hey, is there a way to make 1s not be natural fails on Will saves? I know that the feat Steadfast Determination, which lets you use Con instead of Wis for Will saves, also makes Fort saves not autofail on 1, but is there a similar feat/ability for Will?

Oh, and one more thing I thought of. Stop the caster from being able to cast Disjunction. It's a Verbal only spell, but since it's 9th level it'd take some finagling to make it Silent (Arcane Thesis Disjunction? No one would do that.) So if the players get some sort of item of Silence, then they have nothing to fear.

[Divide by Zero]

Hey, is there a way to make 1s not be natural fails on Will saves? I know that the feat Steadfast Determination, which lets you use Con instead of Wis for Will saves, also makes Fort saves not autofail on 1, but is there a similar feat/ability for Will?

Martial Study (Moment of Perfect Mind), though it's only once per encounter if you're not a martial adept.

[Nettlekid]

Martial Study (Moment of Perfect Mind), though it's only once per encounter if you're not a martial adept.

That could work, but even as a martial adept it's certainly not usable more than once a round. Probably not even once a round, for recovery time. It wouldn't prove good defense against a Disjunction. What I want is something that, if you had a high enough bonus to your Will save, you would pass regardless of the roll.

[Hendel]

While not really a sanctified use of Wish, I have allowed players to use a Wish to "undo misfortune" to undo the effects of a disjunction.

The way I see it, the 5000xp cost is comensurate with the result of the disjunction being undone or to revert back to the moment just prior to the disjunction. It is expensive so it won't be used often, but as a DM I would allow that.

[Ganorenas]

I would also the use of Wish to restore the items, and by extension Miracle (but with the exp cost, since wish always has the cost).

Am I a horrible Dm for this? :smalleek: As a player I would be horrified, but I would appreciate being warned several times.

With the Ring of Spell-Battle, would you be able to counter spell a counter spell attempt? Since it is an immediate action?
Would this ring also allow Counter spelling of quickened spells?
I understand that it is impossible to counter spell quickened spells (normally) because you cannot use spell craft when the spell has no noticable components.

[Xervous]

where does it say that quickened spells lose their verbal and somatic?

[Mnemnosyne]

There are very few ways to protect yourself effectively from a disjunction, which sucks because it means losing not one item but all items on your person. The most effective is probably having several crafted contingent spells to go off in the event of a disjunction being about to affect you, with each one including the condition that previous ones must already be discharged.

Personally, I find disjunction to be weird. It's like something that slipped in from 2nd Edition's long, long list of ways to irreversibly cripple a character. Almost everything else was softened up between 2nd and 3.5, but disjunction can completely obliterate a character's ability to function at their level, with no clear way to undo it; it's better to be killed than to be subjected to a disjunction, usually, cause death you can overcome with raise dead or resurrection, while Mordenkainen's Disjunction lacks a clear way to reverse its effects.

My personal preference has been to houserule it thusly:
Mordenkainen’s Disjunction: Magic items subjected to Mordenkainen’s Disjunction must make a will saving throw or be rendered inert for 24 hours. If a magic item that has been rendered inert in this fashion is subjected to a second casting of Mordenkainen’s Disjunction, it must then make a will save or be rendered permanently nonmagical. A wish or miracle spell can restore magic to a single magic item that has been rendered nonfunctional in this manner. Artifacts cannot be destroyed by Mordenkainen’s Disjunction, but there is a 1% chance per caster level of rendering them inert for 24 hours. If subjected to a second casting of Mordenkainen’s Disjunction while inert, an artifact has a 1% chance per caster level of being rendered inert for one year.
This requires two failed will saves in order to permanently destroy the item. For the purposes of the battle at hand, Mordenkainen's Disjunction remains perfectly useful; it shuts down the character's magic items that fail a will save, so the caster's chances of victory are improved by casting it just as much as they would be in the default version. It takes a second casting and second round of failed will saves to permanently cripple a character's ability to function by removing all their magical items in one fell swoop. This is basically good from everybody's viewpoint; the guy that cast it can now loot those deactivated items and use them 24 hours later. The guy that was subjected to it, if he still manages to win this battle, will be weakened for a day, but at least he hasn't lost his items. It also removes what I've always considered to be a way too easy method of artifact destruction.

[Glimbur]

That could work, but even as a martial adept it's certainly not usable more than once a round. Probably not even once a round, for recovery time. It wouldn't prove good defense against a Disjunction. What I want is something that, if you had a high enough bonus to your Will save, you would pass regardless of the roll.

Pride domain lets you reroll natural 1's on saves all day long. You have to make the DC of a caster throwing 9th level spells, but it's helpful.

[Nettlekid]

Pride domain lets you reroll natural 1's on saves all day long. You have to make the DC of a caster throwing 9th level spells, but it's helpful.

O_O Wait, that's beautiful. How could I have missed this? Now, how can I get the domain granted power on a non-Cleric character? There's a Planar Touchstone feat that does that, right...?

[Carth]

O_O Wait, that's beautiful. How could I have missed this? Now, how can I get the domain granted power on a non-Cleric character? There's a Planar Touchstone feat that does that, right...?

Yes. Complete Champion also has an ACF that allows you to trade wizard feats gained at 5th level and so forth for a domain power instead.

[Piggy Knowles]

I am one of the rare ducks that actually has no problem throwing around Disjunction, as a player or as a DM.

As a player, if I'm playing a character capable of casting 9th-level wizard spells, I'm probably in a fairly high power campaign. If that's the case, then yes, I will absolutely use Disjunction. The one campaign I played in where my wizard reached those levels had a lot of well-buffed dragons and NPC wizards. Without MDJ, our party wouldn't have been able to touch them. Greater Dispel and the like just weren't tough enough. MDJ was needed to keep the party alive. The DM did use it on our party once or twice, which was nasty, but we had an artificer cohort and, while ordinarily using economy-breaking tricks was discouraged, the DM sort of looked the other way while we got our party back up to speed.

As a DM, I generally houserule in some spells and rituals that can repair magic items, so that players don't feel like they can't ever sunder or shatter enemy equipment for fear of losing out on their loot (and, similarly, so that I don't feel bad when a random combat trooper gets a sundering cleave off against a party member). With MDJ, I say that with a standard area disjoining, magic items "break" and must be repaired via those rituals. However, you can also use a focused version of the spell that completely and irrevocably destroys the magic in something, and no non-epic spell or ritual can bring it back.

This way, an enemy can toss out a Disjunction and, while it's a very nasty inconvenience, it only sets the part back for a day or two if they don't make the saves for their items. But at the same time, if the party wants to use it to really and truly destroy something, they can.

[Deophaun]

The DM did use it on our party once or twice, which was nasty, but we had an artificer cohort and, while ordinarily using economy-breaking tricks was discouraged, the DM sort of looked the other way while we got our party back up to speed.
And that's the rub right there. If you have something that can offset disjunction, it's fair game. The problem is, those things that can offset disjunction are often borderline cheesy (e.g. any way to break WBL). If the party isn't partaking in the cheese, then MD should probably be off the table, at least so you don't tempt your players in the future.

[Psyren]

If you're worried about using it you can just use the Pathfinder version. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/mage-s-disjunction) This version can still destroy magic items, but only one at a time; it will also suppress items en masse for a long enough time to make them unusable in the current fight. It's much fairer when used on players without really hurting its functionality from a story sense.

[Eldariel]

Yes. Complete Champion also has an ACF that allows you to trade wizard feats gained at 5th level and so forth for a domain power instead.

Perhaps more interestingly, Planar Touchstone feat from Planar Handbook is accessible to any class (though with Knowledge: Planes ranks as a prerequisite) and can be used to access the Planar Power of "Catalogues of Enlightenment" (on Mechanus), which grant the power of any single Cleric Domain. Pride is a very solid option.

[Venger]

I would also the use of Wish to restore the items, and by extension Miracle (but with the exp cost, since wish always has the cost).

Am I a horrible Dm for this? :smalleek: As a player I would be horrified, but I would appreciate being warned several times.
answered your own question there.

do not use disjunction. it does not in any way make the game more fun. everyone's laid out reasons against it which are all good (ruins mundanes' lives forever by depriving them of magic they are unable to replace, etc) and those defending it are essentially saying "it's not so bad as long as you houserule it so there's some kind of undo button for it like every other spell in the game.

if that's your approach to it, why include it at all?

if you must, Mnemnosyne's fix looks the most reasonable if you are dead set on taking your party's entire complement of noncasters out of the fight


With the Ring of Spell-Battle, would you be able to counter spell a counter spell attempt? Since it is an immediate action?
Would this ring also allow Counter spelling of quickened spells?
I understand that it is impossible to counter spell quickened spells (normally) because you cannot use spell craft when the spell has no noticable components.

yes.


Counterspelling Metamagic Spells
Metamagic feats are not taken into account when determining whether a spell can be countered

whoever told you you can't counterspell quickened spells was simply wrong. quickening a spell does not take away any of its components. in any event, you can still counter a spell without any components as long as you know a spell is being cast somehow (arcane sight, ring of spell battle, etc)

[Nettlekid]

Why don't you homebrew a Disjunction Lite which requires maybe a 1-turn charging round that can be disrupted by attacks, maybe it still offers a Will save for items but it wouldn't have to, and instead of DESTROYING magic items it could just deactivate them for like a minute or an hour or something. If the guy unleashes it then it's as bad (for the battle) as a regular Disjunction, but without the negative long-term consequences.

[ironwizard]

I would like to respectfully disagree. You've warned your players that MD is a possibility. Your job is done. If they don't want their stuff ruined, then let them figure out how to counter it. It's valuable to try and figure out what they'll do so you can be prepared, but if they ignore your warning(s), let them face the music. PCs are plenty powerful enough as is without taking all the teeth out of a rather scary spell. Don't get tempted to nerf things just because it's powerful. High level characters need things to be afraid of, or the fun starts to seep out. Let it be Mordenkainen's Disjunction.

[Waspinator]

The weird thing about disjunction is that being hit by it can be more expensive than dying would be.

[TuggyNE]

I would like to respectfully disagree. You've warned your players that MD is a possibility. Your job is done. If they don't want their stuff ruined, then let them figure out how to counter it. It's valuable to try and figure out what they'll do so you can be prepared, but if they ignore your warning(s), let them face the music. PCs are plenty powerful enough as is without taking all the teeth out of a rather scary spell. Don't get tempted to nerf things just because it's powerful. High level characters need things to be afraid of, or the fun starts to seep out. Let it be Mordenkainen's Disjunction.

Ehhhhhh, there's "I'm scared of this spell, because it can quite likely make me lose a battle", and then there's "I'm scared of this spell, because if it hits me I'd be better off rerolling and starting three levels lower". MDJ is the latter; I see nothing wrong in principle or in practice with recalibrating it to be a bit closer to the former. And several perfectly good means of doing just that have already been proposed, and should work fine.

[GolemsVoice]

Even if you warned them, if they have to dedicate a lot of ressources and time just to counter one single spell (and there's tons of other nasty spells out there) that's maybe a bit much.

The lite-versions do seem good, however-

[Sith_Happens]

Even if you fix the "there goes your WBL" problem, there's still also the issue that Disjunction automatically dispels every buff you have on you with no roll, which basically destroys the way that mid-to-high-level casters operate.

[Spuddles]

Even if you fix the "there goes your WBL" problem, there's still also the issue that Disjunction automatically dispels every buff you have on you with no roll, which basically destroys the way that mid-to-high-level casters operate.

The former problem is easily solved with a high will save. The latter is, "suck it, casters".

There's also a +4 enhancement weapon from a FR book that lets a weapon absorb a spell shot at you. Can't remember the specifics.

[Sith_Happens]

The former problem is easily solved with a high will save. The latter is, "suck it, casters".

It's even more "suck it, noncasters who were probably relying on various buffs/immunities to not die instantly."

[Rubik]

There's also a +4 enhancement weapon from a FR book that lets a weapon absorb a spell shot at you. Can't remember the specifics.Spellblade, I believe.

Is there any effect like this that ISN'T "ray or targeted spell only"?

[Hendel]

Even if you fix the "there goes your WBL" problem, there's still also the issue that Disjunction automatically dispels every buff you have on you with no roll, which basically destroys the way that mid-to-high-level casters operate.
My issue with this is that it also dispels Epic level spells with no save or anything. As you only have a very small amount to cast per day, it is really powerful for a 9th level spell to be able to instantly counter that in a 40 foot radius.

I have used it before as both a DM and a player, but it is like the nuclear threat. It is more of a deterent than actual usage of it. There is a somewhat unspoken concept between DM and players, that if I don't use it, you don't use it. Once that is broken, however, all gloves come off...

[Ganorenas]

As a player I wouldn't use it because I would destroy my loot, but if I came across larger, less loot dependent monsters like dragons, I would have no qualms about using it to remove all of their buffs.

For my players, they are a tad over wbl at the moment, and I do plan on having some extra magic items to compensate for what is expected to be lost, but over all they were warned and didn't put up much of a fight to convince me not to, assuming I would use kiddy gloves or they could prevent it...

I will seriously think about using a lesser version, because many of you have given me that as a viable way to prevent them from being rendered useless.
Though they do have many npc allies with excess items, and could be put into their debt for a new set of magic items. How does that sound? Failing your will saves would allow you to get (worse) gear for a price other than money, and be indebted to an npc for a side quest (which they seem to enjoy doing)?

They do not have a player party crafter, when the group was smaller I provided an npc wizard to cover their buffing needs, but the npc has since gone to research new spells once the party hit level 15(average) and 7 players so that the wizard wouldn't outshine or bog down combat... 7 players take a long time.

They Havnt (I assume) heard of planar touch stones, but I'm not against them seeking them out, the pride domain has a very powerful ability :smalleek:

Alright, I guess I was wrong about not wing able to counter spell quickened spells :smallsmile: which is very good to know ahead of time, thank you guys!

My players get along, but their characters do not, they have actually spent a few tens of thousands of their wbl (each) to protect against other players in the party (our shaman loves to Compel npcs, and dreams of a day when the party is completely good aligned). I have spoken with him about not doing that to players, because it can ruin what the players want from their characters, but give him a lot of leeway when he wants to use it on npcs, he was able to assist a group of newly born were wolves return to a semblance of their former alignments after the party decided not to murder the poor kids.
*so, having them spend money to save themselves from something like disjunction is definitely fine with me, I would have already prepared for it if my character had more than 16 int by level 17, and they understand I try to play enemies to their int...

Spell blade would only work on rays or targeted effects? That can still be powerful. :smallsmile:
*i'm thinking of you, my beloved armor spikes

[Nettlekid]

Why don't you use Disjunction as it's written, and see their reactions to it? If they're really upset, then an hour after the battle have their magic item's powers return. If they're like "Well, we could have stopped it" and are accepting of it, then let it work like Disjunction should. Or whatever you want.

[Pickford]

I DM for a group of seven:

Half-dragon whisper gnome Duskblade
Half-dragon Troll Cleric/Boneknight
Half-Nymph Grey Fire Elf Rogue/Assassin
Pumit(custom race) Spirit shaman/lion of Talisid
Half-Fiend human Black guard
Dream Dwarf Kinetisist
Half-Golem Dwarf Barbarian

... Lot of halves up there.
LA buy off was allowed, they are all between 15-17 in level.
The spirit shaman hit level 17. I warned them all from the beginning once level 17 was attained, if they fought someone with disjunction I would not hold it back if their group looks like it can kill the npc. They understood it. They accepted it.
(probably because of all the encounter breaking shenanigans I laughed through with them)

So, only one of them ever thinks to counter something when I warn them ahead of time. Are there counters to disjunction?
Anything they can use to avoid it? Anything they can grab or cast to negate it?

Thank you guys for the help!

*Disjunction is not going to be used on them immediately, I'm not that evil, and as stated, only if they seriously threaten one of the... (6?) casters in the game world able to cast it, excluding deities who won't need it. I don't like destroying their wealth unless I compensate for it in the same dungeon. I understand WBL is important for balance.

*The party has held itself admirably well against appropriate encounters using similar tactics, stronger enemies using less intelligent tactics, and weaker encounters using strong tactics. (this is just how they play, I meet them appropriately)

*I understand half-Golem is for DM use, but he made some very convincing arguments for using it, and has not been a problem with it. (He actually finds it as a major deficit when the party needs to teleport or quickly escape)

Anti-magic field, there's only a 1% chance per caster level to destroy the amf, and if the amf survives no items within it are disjoined.

Only way to stop the cast would be grapple to a pin, or something in counterspelling...but without anyone specialized in that...one alternative.

Really high will saves. Disjunction base DC is: 10 base + 9th level + at least 4 in primary casting stat (19 min to cast = +4), so 23.

At 17th level:

Rogue/Assassin is probably in trouble.
Blackguard also.

Duskblade should be ok with a +5 to their resistance
Dunno what the bone knights saves are like, but if it's same as cleric should be ok.
Spirit shaman same deal.

The half-golem is in trouble, as golems are animated objects disjunction flat out kills them (breaking the magical effect down into its constituent parts)...also confusing, is the dwarf meant to have a golem parent? How...? Or is this a dwarf who lost limbs and had mecha-limbs magically grafted on to justify the template? Depending on what the fluff is determines what happens when hit by the spell. If it's the former (some parent explanation) it's death. If it's the latter...just return to being crippled.

[TuggyNE]

The half-golem is in trouble, as golems are animated objects disjunction flat out kills them (breaking the magical effect down into its constituent parts)...also confusing, is the dwarf meant to have a golem parent? How...? Or is this a dwarf who lost limbs and had mecha-limbs magically grafted on to justify the template?

IIRC, half-golem is the result of experimentation.

Also, golems are not in fact animated objects (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm). They have a quite different creation process, are not suppressed by antimagic fields/dead magic zones, are immune to magic, have no hardness, and so on and so forth. So there's no particular reason to assume they'd fall apart when disjoined, any more than a dragon, a zombie, or an inevitable does.

[Pickford]

IIRC, half-golem is the result of experimentation.

Also, golems are not in fact animated objects (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm). They have a quite different creation process, are not suppressed by antimagic fields/dead magic zones, are immune to magic, have no hardness, and so on and so forth. So there's no particular reason to assume they'd fall apart when disjoined, any more than a dragon, a zombie, or an inevitable does.

MM, 307

A construct is an animated object or artificially constructed creature.

MM, 13

They owe their existence to spells such as animate objects or similar supernatural abilities.

and last but not least:

MM, 303 - craft construct feat

The creature can create golems and other magic automatons that obey its orders.

There:
1) Golems are magic.
2) Disjunction splits magic items down to their constituent components.

Edit: Tuggyne you're right, AMF specifically gives golems a free pass...Disjunction on the other hand gives no exceptions but artifacts and Anti-magic fields.

[Deophaun]

1) Golems are magic.
2) Disjunction splits magic items down to their constituent components
See, the problem is that you didn't include any text that labels golems as magic items. You just talk about animated objects. Which is ok and all, but not on point. You could have saved a lot of time by just going to the golem entry...

The characteristics of a golem that come from its nature as a magic item (caster level, prerequisite feats and spells, market price, cost to create) are given in summary form at the end of each golem’s description, in the same format used in Chapter 7 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
I disagreed with you until I saw that. It's not just "similar to a magic item," but flat out is a magic item. As MD is SR: No, golems are in trouble if they get hit by it.

[Spuddles]

Does a half golem have the same problem? It's not a construct, and therefore not a magic item.

[Deophaun]

A half-golem is definitely going to have some problem if it's disjoined...

Once created, the limbs are treated as spell completion items.
So its golem limbs can certainly be made inert. It should strip the benefits of the template, and probably result in the character's death. But he could at least be raised, coming back sans template.

[Hendel]

It's not just "similar to a magic item," but flat out is a magic item. As MD is SR: No, golems are in trouble if they get hit by it.
It seems that as such they would at least get a Will Save, but I would think that upon failure they would go inert having been "de-magiced" so to speak.

[TuggyNE]

MM, 307

The "or" is important; some constructs (most of them) are not animated objects, as such. And golems are in the majority here.


MM, 13

The context is unclear (and I don't have physical books on hand), so I'm not sure whether this refers to constructs in general, animated objects in particular, or golems. If the first, that can't be right, since things like Inevitables, Retriever Demons, and so on exist; if the second, it doesn't (necessarily) apply to golems, for the reasons given, and is basically irrelevant.


and last but not least:

MM, 303 - craft construct feat

OK. Unfortunately, most undead are also created by magic in some way, either spawned, raised, or animated spontaneously. Do they blow up if you hit them with disjunction?


Edit: Tuggyne you're right, AMF specifically gives golems a free pass...Disjunction on the other hand gives no exceptions but artifacts and Anti-magic fields.

So, what, dragons are trashed? Or undead made by animate dead? Clearly it can't include "everything that's magical and may or may not be a creature". It doesn't need a specific exception in order to leave golems out.

… or at least it wouldn't, except for this:

See, the problem is that you didn't include any text that labels golems as magic items. You just talk about animated objects. Which is ok and all, but not on point. You could have saved a lot of time by just going to the golem entry...


The characteristics of a golem that come from its nature as a magic item (caster level, prerequisite feats and spells, market price, cost to create) are given in summary form at the end of each golem’s description, in the same format used in Chapter 7 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide.

I disagreed with you until I saw that. It's not just "similar to a magic item," but flat out is a magic item. As MD is SR: No, golems are in trouble if they get hit by it.

As far as I can tell, that's the only reason to suppose golems would be hit by it. And yes, unless there's some exception, that's good enough.

(One might argue that only those listed qualities are specifically drawn "from its nature as a magic item", and therefore no other aspects of being a magic item apply, but I think that's fallacious, because disjunction affects magic items without it being a part of their nature really.)

[Deophaun]

It seems that as such they would at least get a Will Save, but I would think that upon failure they would go inert having been "de-magiced" so to speak.
They do get a will save, as does even an unattended magic item. But, golems have poor will saves, and even when fully advanced are probably going to fail their save more often than not against a wizard/sorcerer who bothered to keep his intelligence/charisma up (read: every wizard and sorcerer in the history of 3.5 that ever managed to cast 9th level spells)

Now, half-golems with class levels and their assortment of magic items are a different matter in terms of their success rate.

[Rubik]

How about warforged? They're created by other magic items, but don't require item creation feats and are thus not likely items.

Plus I'd be rather put out of my character got irrevocably de-animated by a single spell.

[Deophaun]

Not sure if the need for an item creation feat makes you a magic item or not. After all, you don't need an item creation feat to make a wand. You just need a wish spell. Are wands created by wish magic items?

Plus, we don't actually know that an item creation feat is not required. It could well be the case that players do require Craft Warforged to make a warforged, but since the feat doesn't exist, PCs are forever prevented from doing so.

Reading through Races of Eberron, I'm inclined to say that warforged are subject to disjunction. I don't have clear RAW to point to, it's a pure judgement call. But, I don't see "You can be killed by a 9th level spell that has an effect worse than death on most targets" as being a particularly egregious vulnerability.

[kabreras]

The "or" is important; some constructs (most of them) are not animated objects, as such. And golems are in the majority here.



The context is unclear (and I don't have physical books on hand), so I'm not sure whether this refers to constructs in general, animated objects in particular, or golems. If the first, that can't be right, since things like Inevitables, Retriever Demons, and so on exist; if the second, it doesn't (necessarily) apply to golems, for the reasons given, and is basically irrelevant.



OK. Unfortunately, most undead are also created by magic in some way, either spawned, raised, or animated spontaneously. Do they blow up if you hit them with disjunction?



So, what, dragons are trashed? Or undead made by animate dead? Clearly it can't include "everything that's magical and may or may not be a creature". It doesn't need a specific exception in order to leave golems out.

… or at least it wouldn't, except for this:


As far as I can tell, that's the only reason to suppose golems would be hit by it. And yes, unless there's some exception, that's good enough.

(One might argue that only those listed qualities are specifically drawn "from its nature as a magic item", and therefore no other aspects of being a magic item apply, but I think that's fallacious, because disjunction affects magic items without it being a part of their nature really.)

The magic involved is instantaneous so once it take effect it is gone. The effect it self is not magic or maybe all of you that got rezed (magic) would die again with a disjunction ?

No golems are not magic items, they are created with magic that serve to make them, like undeads, once they are made, the magic used is done and the golem is here, the golem is not a magic item, its the result of a magical ritual or spell they are not more magics than undeads by themself magic is just in the building process.

[Mnemnosyne]

As far as I can tell, because of the specific text in the golem entry in the Monster Manual, golems (and only golems, not 'everything made through the Craft Construct feat') are indeed magic items and subject to disjunction, by RAW. This does not apply to warforged or to any other type of construct that does not specifically fall under the 'golem' entry, because only the specific text from the 'golem' entry calls them out as magic items.

Indeed, the fact that golems are magic items is interesting and suddenly makes their immunity to magic a lot weaker, because disjunction isn't the only spell that will affect them as magic items. By RAW, any dispel magic that overcomes the caster level that a golem was created with will suppress it for 1d4 rounds, rendering it an inert object temporarily. The question at that point is whether it retains its extraordinary immunity to magic even while the golem is suppressed. I can't think of any other example of characters becoming inanimate objects offhand, other than say, being petrified through flesh to stone or something, and in that case, they definitely don't get to keep any immunities or abilities. Which seems to suggest that because of this text, a golem can be dispelled to suppress it for 1d4 rounds, then affected by SR: Yes spells that affect objects, like say, disintegrate.

I seriously doubt any of this was intended that way, and it would probably be a good idea not to treat golems as magic items, since it introduces a lot of weaknesses in an area they're supposed to be strong in.

[Spuddles]

I think it's an oversight due to changing from old school Magic Immunity to the new Infinite SR version.

[TuggyNE]

The magic involved is instantaneous so once it take effect it is gone. The effect it self is not magic or maybe all of you that got rezed (magic) would die again with a disjunction ?

No golems are not magic items, they are created with magic that serve to make them, like undeads, once they are made, the magic used is done and the golem is here, the golem is not a magic item, its the result of a magical ritual or spell they are not more magics than undeads by themself magic is just in the building process.

Mnemosyne has it right; instantaneous magic normally would not be affected by disjunction, but golems have a specific exception that arguably treats them as magic items for basically all purposes. Including, yes, dispel magic.

Probably one for the Dysfunctional Rules thread, honestly.

[kabreras]

As i read it, the construction is the same as a magic item.
The result is actually a construct, not a magic item.

[Ganorenas]

Forgot my password again :smallfrown:

I believe threads die after 2 weeks, and this is 13 days after the last post, so i should still beable to post... i was looking through the rules and couldn't find the one i was looking for :smallfrown:

Though this could be the last post anyway, as i plan on wrapping it up here.

Anyway, as Dm of the campaign, i wouldn't rule for the half-golem that disjunction slays him, or that he could be dispelled into having innert arms, because that would be mean... (Wait. I'm the Dm. Isn't that our job? :smallsmile: )

Anyway, I told my players that a forum was created about disjunction (atleast the ones that read Giant) giving them the thread title to search if they so desire, so I have no problems with disjoining them now. :smallsmile:

Maybe they will take your wonderful advice, maybe not. I'm leaning toward not, many of them don't know how to prepare for anything i hint at in-game and out-of-game.


AGAIN

Thank you guys, this was very helpful! :smallbiggrin:

[Pickford]

See, the problem is that you didn't include any text that labels golems as magic items. You just talk about animated objects. Which is ok and all, but not on point. You could have saved a lot of time by just going to the golem entry...

I disagreed with you until I saw that. It's not just "similar to a magic item," but flat out is a magic item. As MD is SR: No, golems are in trouble if they get hit by it.

Actually I didn't see that part, hah, but thank you for making the point even better than I did. :smallamused:

Tuggyne: Sorry I don't remember the circumstances but I think it involved writing a paper, so I lost track of this thread.

responses here:

I think the or part is taken care of by what Deophaun found, on pg. 134 that golems are magic items.

No on the undead, MM says spiritual or supernatural forces animate them. That would seem to be outside the scope of disjunction.

Dragons: As far as I can tell, no, they appear to have supernatural and extraordinary qualities. i.e. their existence isn't, strictly speaking, dependent on an ongoing magical effect.

Re: Dispel Magic...I would say it can only impact the Golem insofar as it can impact a magic item, i.e. temporary disabling.

And the golem, as it's a magic item, would break down into the constituent parts from disjunction (i.e. it literally falls apart)

[nedz]

Honestly: at the level your likely to meet a disjunction both sides are going to be Astrally Projecting anyway. It's just another version of Rocket Tag — I win initiative, cast Disjunction, and the other side pops out of existence.

Blink is an interesting defence: 50/50 as to whether you lose 95% of your equipment or end up stuck on the Ethereal.

Another defence is to win initiative and take out the Mage first.

Or be in amongst the enemy which may dissuade the Mage from casting it as it will effect his side also.

It's also worth noting that it's a close range spell (Ok that's like 70'+ at this level) so either stay out of that range or close fast.

Ed: other defences:

Carry around plenty of items which are obviously, or perhaps just apparently, Artefacts.

Play a VoP character.

[Ganorenas]

Ironically, the spirit shaman/lion of T is a vow of poverty character (for the challenge he says...) and was allowed a donation from some groups he donated his share of the loot to, in order to cast astral projection twice...

Wonder how the rest of the party will deal with their full caster going poof the moment they lose some of their items to an enemy caster that can use disjunction...
Now I really worry for them being able to survive a wizard or sorcerer when they only have an assassin, duskblade, and very low level cleric for magical back up...

Though I guess they are still going to either die or curse the Mage that disjoined then teleported anyway. They don't plan well enough to have a chance against an intelligent full caster anyway (except the shaman)

Hmmm. It would be great to waltz into a dungeon, disjoin any golems, and take them home for expensive lawn ornaments. So much easier than blasting them with a bunch of orbs of ------ and acid arrow. Or what ever they happen to be weak against.

[Slide]

If I'm in a campaign where I know Disjunction is on the table, Craft Contingent Spell is going to be on *my* side of the table, along with a "get out of jail free" spell. Using a feat to deal with one spell may seem like a bit much, but unlike Contingency, you can store your hit dice in crafted Contingencies. For a high-level party, that's an opportunity to figure out the most common ways to bite it in a campaign and try to counter them before they happen.

[Rubik]

If I'm in a campaign where I know Disjunction is on the table, Craft Contingent Spell is going to be on *my* side of the table, along with a "get out of jail free" spell. Using a feat to deal with one spell may seem like a bit much, but unlike Contingency, you can store your hit dice in crafted Contingencies. For a high-level party, that's an opportunity to figure out the most common ways to bite it in a campaign and try to counter them before they happen.(Greater) Celerity is an excellent option for Contingency and the Craft Contingency feat. Use the extra action granted to use the spells at your disposal to deal with the exact situation at hand. Sometimes you want to get out of the way. Sometimes you want to throw a conjuration spell up to block. Sometimes you want to throw major damage at your opponent. Sometimes you want a buff to make you immune to what they're doing. Sometimes you want to make full use of your tinfoil hat to foil their action. Most of those you can't do with the standard Contingencies, but (Greater) Celerity will allow you to do them, and since it gives you actions it's far more dynamic.

The only problem is that it uses your current spell loadout rather than the ones you had when you crafted the Contingency. That can be gotten around through judicious use of wands and scrolls (especially if you use the tricks available to make them usable without extra actions), but it does take a bit of preparatory work.

[Seffbasilisk]

Craft Contingency is only useful if you have a counter for that (possibly multiple times over) specifically. Other than that? In this situation, it's a liability.

I'm with ironwizard. You told your players, they can be canny or not. It's about the level of softie that I get to.

If they really want to be Disjunction free, they can quest for an artifact or six. If someone disjunctions an artifact, it has a chance of breaking the planar barriers a bit, and bringing in some major baddies. They just let it be worked into the songs about them, and no one would dare disjunction near them, lest they wake something akin to Candl