PDA

View Full Version : Fooling around with ways to escape Mordenkainen's Distjunction



Melcar
2014-08-05, 06:33 PM
Yeah... I know, this have been up here before, but I still wanted to share my thoughts and ideas on this... Usually this place is a good start, when thinking one have found a loophole, or gotten a great idea... So without further bla bla....

I was thinking that Contingency could be used to set up a condition that reads: "When ever a disjunktion effect are within 5 ft of you, immediately cast lesser celerity?" Or: "When ever a disjunktion effect are within 5 ft of you, immediately cast dimension door?"

I was thinking that this could be a viable condition, since falling 4 ft. could be one. So if the spell can measure falling 4 ft, it might be able to measure distance to a disjunction effect?

What do you guys think... ?

Story
2014-08-05, 09:12 PM
By the time the Disjunction effect occurs, your Contingency is already gone.

Forrestfire
2014-08-05, 09:28 PM
That is definitely an issue, yeah. My preferred approach is to respond with a Wings of Cover, since it blocks line of effect, and Disjunction is a burst.

Chronos
2014-08-05, 09:29 PM
You need to respond to the casting, not to the effect. Which depends on having some way of detecting and recognizing the casting.

Svata
2014-08-05, 09:35 PM
IotSV can stop it with either a Indigo or Violet Veil.

Curmudgeon
2014-08-05, 10:22 PM
This is a nasty spell. As someone who plays Rogues (equipped with very many magic items, but with low Will saves), one casting can stop the game for literally hours. It's necessary to look up the saves of every single item, because some of them will have better saves than the character carrying them.

There's a lot of DM adjudication needed with Mordenkainen's Disjunction:

Are magical effects dispelled before or after magical items are checked?
In what order are objects affected? If people are carrying around minor cursed artifacts, this matters quite a bit.
What happens to the contents of magical containers? Most containers will provide complete cover and block line of effect. We know what happens when a Bag of Holding is pierced, but not what happens when its magic is dispelled.

If your DM says de-magicked container contents are simply dumped on the ground, you'll be out the cost of a Heward's Handy Haversack and maybe a Bag of Holding, but all the magical gear stored in those containers will still be good. Sew all your magical necklaces and bracelets in heavy cloth before putting them on so they'll have total cover; the 1 HP from half an inch of cloth will have to be sundered before they could be vulnerable to burst spells like Mordenkainen's Disjunction.

Story
2014-08-05, 10:31 PM
IMO the best solution is to get an agreement with the DM to ban Disjunction. Or at least houserule it into something more reasonable.

DeAnno
2014-08-06, 12:00 AM
The frustrating part is the buff-stripping aspect is mostly positive for balance, so banning it altogether (due to the destructive item aspect) can be problematic.

Rubik
2014-08-06, 12:10 AM
There are plenty of ways to defend against Disjunction. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?175988-3-5-Defending-against-Disjunction)

You can also use devices (Ravenloft: Legacy of Blood) instead of magic items. They're completely nonmagical versions of magic items, but they require batteries that are quite expensive and have limited charges (or batteries which recharge from your own body's energies, but are dangerous and even more expensive) and are quite fragile. Of course, the charges last for the duration of the magical effect, so a wand device's charge would last long enough to cast a (nonmagical) spell, while a headband of Int would last until you removed it.

Devices are undispellable and nonDisjunctionable.

sleepyphoenixx
2014-08-06, 02:54 AM
If you have ranks in spellcraft a Ring of Spell Battle is pretty much foolproof defense. Just redirect it somewhere else where it doesn't destroy anything important.
Battlemagic Perception is also an option, as is using Celerity/Anticipatory Strike and throwing up a Wall of Stone, AMF or other LoE blocker.

Vaz
2014-08-06, 11:56 AM
Locate a character able to cast/manifest Teleport Through Time.

Have it locate Mordenkainen's place of birth.

Kill him as a baby.

Congratulations, there is no MDJ on you any more because it didn't exist.

Piggy Knowles
2014-08-06, 12:40 PM
For those who suggest banning MDJ: how do you as a player effectively deal with high level casters and dragons without it? I consider it a more or less essential tool in a high level party's arsenal. DMs shouldn't mis-use it, of course, and shouldn't spam it anymore than they should be spamming Shivering Touches or similar game-disrupting spells, and they will need to keep a careful eye on WBL to make sure they are compensating for disjointed items, but I've never been a fan of banning the spell entirely.

As for defenses... If you have a speaking familiar and you are trained in Spellcraft, have your familiar ready an action each round to speak the command word on a shrunken item (a cone hat is the usual suggestion) when someone tries to cast MDJ. The readied action will resolve before the disjunction and the shrunken item will unshrink and block it, as MDJ is a burst.

Rubik
2014-08-06, 12:52 PM
I prefer Chained Greater Dispels, myself.

Of course, I also like to use Supernatural Transformation (Psionics) to avoid being Dispelled, myself.

sleepyphoenixx
2014-08-06, 01:04 PM
For those who suggest banning MDJ: how do you as a player effectively deal with high level casters and dragons without it? I consider it a more or less essential tool in a high level party's arsenal. DMs shouldn't mis-use it, of course, and shouldn't spam it anymore than they should be spamming Shivering Touches or similar game-disrupting spells, and they will need to keep a careful eye on WBL to make sure they are compensating for disjointed items, but I've never been a fan of banning the spell entirely.

Greater Dispel is usually enough when you improve on it with stuff like Spellcaster's Bane, Inquisition domain and a Dispelling Chord. For higher OP games with various CL boosts i usually try to get Reserves of Strength.
We don't ban MDJ though; i just don't like to use it because of the loot destruction. It's just another thing you need to protect yourself from at high level. It's not like it's impossible.

Going into a fight against a spellcaster with 9th level spells without a plan to deal with disjunction is like not getting Death Ward, FoM, Mind Blank or similar protections. It's your own fault if you get hit with it.


As for defenses... If you have a speaking familiar and you are trained in Spellcraft, have your familiar ready an action each round to speak the command word on a shrunken item (a cone hat is the usual suggestion) when someone tries to cast MDJ. The readied action will resolve before the disjunction and the shrunken item will unshrink and block it, as MDJ is a burst.

I'd rather get Celerity, Anticipatory Strike, Wings of Cover or something similar to protect myself instead of wasting my familiars actions on waiting for something that specific to occur.
Everybody should be able to get enough UMD to reliably activate a wand at level 17. It's a relatively minor investment at that level and invaluably useful.

Piggy Knowles
2014-08-06, 03:39 PM
Except that dispelling allows for dispel checks that can fail, requires targeting (making it useless when you don't have LoS), and only suppresses magic items for a short time even on a success - the enemy might regain use of their magical doo-dads as early as the next round.

Disjunction has its flaws, but it is FAR more reliable than chained dispels when dealing with dangerous enemies.

sleepyphoenixx
2014-08-06, 04:15 PM
Except that dispelling allows for dispel checks that can fail, requires targeting (making it useless when you don't have LoS), and only suppresses magic items for a short time even on a success - the enemy might regain use of their magical doo-dads as early as the next round.

Disjunction has its flaws, but it is FAR more reliable than chained dispels when dealing with dangerous enemies.

Not destroying their magic items is kind of the point - i want to loot that stuff after its current owners are disposed of.
In general dispelling is reliable enough for me to accept the risk of failing. MDJ's costs aren't worth it against enemies wearing magic items and most monsters don't have a high enough CL to really be a problem.

Piggy Knowles
2014-08-06, 05:07 PM
Most high-level games I've been a part of are games I DM'd, and I try not to punish players for using tactics like sundering and Disjunction - I try to keep their WBL in the right place even if they destroyed their expected source of treasure. That said, I know many DMs don't do this, so YMMV. I also don't allow the Reserves of Strength feat, so Dispel and its greater cousin are capped at their respective limits.

In any case, I've never said that Disjunction was always the best option, just that it makes facing high level spellcasters (and dragons in particular) much easier. I know that I've pitted parties against BBEGs that would have been close to impossible to beat with their buffstacks up; using a chained dispel would have meant the party's victory would have more or less come down to how lucky they were on their dispel checks, while the fact that they had access to Disjunction meant it was a tough but manageable fight. I guess if MDJ was banned I'd probably have toned down the foes to compensate, but it's nice being able to go all out.

Slithery D
2014-08-06, 05:46 PM
If you're the DM, just decide to use the Pathfinder version of disjunction (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/mage-s-disjunction). Magic items that fail are only suppressed for 1 min/CL. You can permanently destroy a magic item only if you focus on it exclusively.

AnonymousPepper
2014-08-06, 05:46 PM
Elminster's Effulgent Epuration (http://dndtools.eu/spells/players-guide-to-faerun--22/elminsters-effulgent-epuration--2210/) *can* work, and it's a spell that anybody who can gain access to a free Persist Spell should persist all day every day, so it's a reasonable solution to this problem. If the caster targets you with it, instead of an area next to you, it will block the effect on you - at least the way I read it. This will probably only work once against the same person, but that one round will give you the chance to teleport or plane shift out without losing all your contingencies.

A more effective solution would be a Contingent Disjunction, set with a contingency such as "Counterspell any Disjunction that would catch me in its area of effect and is not stopped by any other defenses I have." Because contingencies going off are immediate, and as it's been beautifully put, immediate actions take place "any time, yes even then."

Rubik
2014-08-06, 05:52 PM
Elminster's Effulgent Epuration (http://dndtools.eu/spells/players-guide-to-faerun--22/elminsters-effulgent-epuration--2210/) *can* work, and it's a spell that anybody who can gain access to a free Persist Spell should persist all day every day, so it's a reasonable solution to this problem. If the caster targets you with it, instead of an area next to you, it will block the effect on you - at least the way I read it. This will probably only work once against the same person, but that one round will give you the chance to teleport or plane shift out without losing all your contingencies.I'm fairly sure Disjunction is an AoE spell, not a targeted one, so EEE wouldn't work.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2014-08-06, 06:00 PM
Selective Spell + Persistent Spell + Antimagic Field, using alternate metamagic cost abilities of course. Have more than one active if you think you'll need it.

Selective Spell makes it so you're personally unaffected by the spell and can completely ignore it, but everyone else still treats you as being in the AMF when targeting and resolving their spells and abilities. Methods that leave holes in the AMF such as Mastery of Shaping and Extraordinary Spell Aim don't actually work, since the Rules Compendium clarified that an AMF doesn't block line of effect for spells.

Disjunction only has a 1% per caster level chance of destroying an AMF. If it is destroyed then the caster it was protecting is hit as well, but if you have two or more AMFs active there's a separate check for each and thus a lower chance that you'll be hit by it. You could have a contingency to teleport you away if one or more of your AMFs is destroyed, since you don't really want to stick around if something is throwing disjunctions at you.

By the time you're facing disjunction (unless your DM is evil enough to use an Adamantine Clockwork Horror) you should be using Astral Projection to safely adventure anyway. In that case the worst a disjunction can do is possibly disjoin the copies of your magic items that the spell created, and end the Astral Projection spell itself (which makes those copies of items go away anyway).

AnonymousPepper
2014-08-06, 06:48 PM
I'm fairly sure Disjunction is an AoE spell, not a targeted one, so EEE wouldn't work.

I acknowledge that, but it'd be important to make the distinction when using it as to where you're targeting it. If one of your PCs says "I cast Disjunction at the Red Wizard," rather than "I cast Disjunction at this point, catching the Red Wizard in it," and he has EEE up, the emanation will hit him and then burst around him, no? I'd say that'd get blocked on him. It's akin to the difference between shooting a rocket directly at somebody and shooting it at their feet in TF2.

The appropriate DM response to the PC saying that of course is to confirm, "You cast it at the Red Wizard?" and if the PC says yes then it gets blocked.

It's the sort of thing that will only work once, but it would work, imo. At least as I picture/read it anyway. It's a bit of a semantics thing, but my perspective is that it's an important one.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2014-08-06, 06:52 PM
I acknowledge that, but it'd be important to make the distinction when using it as to where you're targeting it. If one of your PCs says "I cast Disjunction at the Red Wizard," rather than "I cast Disjunction at this point, catching the Red Wizard in it," and he has EEE up, the emanation will hit him and then burst around him, no? I'd say that'd get blocked on him. It's akin to the difference between shooting a rocket directly at somebody and shooting it at their feet in TF2.

The appropriate DM response to the PC saying that of course is to confirm, "You cast it at the Red Wizard?" and if the PC says yes then it gets blocked.

It's the sort of thing that will only work once, but it would work, imo. At least as I picture/read it anyway. It's a bit of a semantics thing, but my perspective is that it's an important one.

It doesn't matter how you word where you're targeting it. EEE states, "...that directly targets the subject." Disjunction is not capable of directly targeting a single creature, it can only target an area, so EEE will never be able to block it, even if the center of the Disjunction is targeted on the subject's space.

AnonymousPepper
2014-08-06, 06:53 PM
By the time you're facing disjunction (unless your DM is evil enough to use an Adamantine Clockwork Horror) you should be using Astral Projection to safely adventure anyway. In that case the worst a disjunction can do is possibly disjoin the copies of your magic items that the spell created, and end the Astral Projection spell itself (which makes those copies of items go away anyway).

In regards to AP, and sorry for the double post, I don't think it's necessarily all that safe. If your Wizard has made a sufficiently powerful enemy - and what high level caster hasn't - it's not at all unfeasible for another Wizard to start making deals with the Githyanki, who can very easily be bought with information about Githzerai or Mind Flayer enclaves; such a character would easily know all of the relevant information, probably even with nat1s on Knowledge Planes/Dungeoneering/Arcana/etc. I see it as a likely scenario that such an opponent would approach the Githyanki with such information in exchange for cutting a single silver thread, and suddenly Astral Projection no longer seems particularly safe.

AnonymousPepper
2014-08-06, 06:54 PM
It doesn't matter how you word where you're targeting it. EEE states, "...that directly targets the subject." Disjunction is not capable of directly targeting a single creature, it can only target an area, so EEE will never be able to block it, even if the center of the Disjunction is targeted on the subject's space.

I see your point. It does boil down to semantics, but I think you may be right. *shrug* I've been wrong before.

Chronos
2014-08-06, 07:16 PM
A more effective solution would be a Contingent Disjunction, set with a contingency such as "Counterspell any Disjunction that would catch me in its area of effect and is not stopped by any other defenses I have."
You can't do this with the Contingency spell, since the spell stored by it must target you. I believe you could do it with Craft Contingent Spell, however.

Rubik
2014-08-06, 07:17 PM
I see your point. It does boil down to semantics, but I think you may be right. *shrug* I've been wrong before.Well, "targeting" has a defined definition. Generally, when the game defines a term, you use that definition any time the term is mentioned.

AnonymousPepper
2014-08-06, 07:23 PM
You can't do this with the Contingency spell, since the spell stored by it must target you. I believe you could do it with Craft Contingent Spell, however.

...people actually use Contingency instead of Craft Contingent Spell?

Yeah, I was referring to the latter. And of course CCS is the foundation of the high-level Wizard's total inability to be killed. Died? Contingent Revivify sets off Contingent Greater Plane Shift to your home demiplane sets off Contingent Cure Light Wounds (or a sor/wiz alternative, if CLW is unavailable). Got Wished off your demiplane into a dead magic plane/zone? Contingent Invoke Magic Dismissal (the fourth-level divine version; intentionally fail the save) into Contingent Greater Plane Shift. So on and so forth.

In this case - got Disjoined? No you didn't, Contingent Disjunction to counterspell.

Melcar
2014-08-07, 05:09 AM
All very interesting ideas. I was particular fan of the Craft contingency spell. But was at the same time unsure of how a wizard would get either Wings of Cover or cleric spell into that feat?

Svata
2014-08-07, 05:23 AM
Gold to pay for a sorcerer to cast it into the item during crafting, or to buy it from the market. Or just have an artificer minion cohort party member.

sleepyphoenixx
2014-08-07, 05:54 AM
Wings of Cover is useful enough that you should get it as a wand imo.

Everyone can pick up UMD and activating a spell trigger item is only a DC 20 check. Invest a few skill points, get a few items that boost skills/charisma and get wands of useful low level spells that aren't on your list. Wings of Cover, Silence, Glibness, Joyful Noise, Sonorous Hum... spells that are useful for almost everyone.
At higher levels they're pretty affordable and 50 charges will usually last a long time. Some spells are more useful in eternal wands, but those are similarly priced so it's not really a problem.

Killer Angel
2014-08-07, 06:22 AM
For those who suggest banning MDJ: how do you as a player effectively deal with high level casters and dragons without it? I consider it a more or less essential tool in a high level party's arsenal. DMs shouldn't mis-use it, of course, and shouldn't spam it anymore than they should be spamming Shivering Touches or similar game-disrupting spells,

I saw a campaign ended by a single MDJ spammed by the DM (breaking our tacit gentlemen agreement), followed by a TPK.
That MDJ traveled through time and space, because it nerfed the mere idea of other campaigns with that DM.

Max Caysey
2014-08-07, 07:16 AM
Wings of Cover is useful enough that you should get it as a wand imo.

Everyone can pick up UMD and activating a spell trigger item is only a DC 20 check. Invest a few skill points, get a few items that boost skills/charisma and get wands of useful low level spells that aren't on your list. Wings of Cover, Silence, Glibness, Joyful Noise, Sonorous Hum... spells that are useful for almost everyone.
At higher levels they're pretty affordable and 50 charges will usually last a long time. Some spells are more useful in eternal wands, but those are similarly priced so it's not really a problem.

Does a wizard need UMD for activating an arcane wand?

Piggy Knowles
2014-08-07, 07:18 AM
Not for an eternal wand, but for a standard wand, yes. A UMD check is necessary if the spell is not on the wizard's spell list.

Bronk
2014-08-07, 08:35 AM
Sew all your magical necklaces and bracelets in heavy cloth before putting them on so they'll have total cover; the 1 HP from half an inch of cloth will have to be sundered before they could be vulnerable to burst spells like Mordenkainen's Disjunction.

If necessary, this could be the basis of the 'gentleman's agreement' of setting 'disjunction' aside in campaigns that is often brought up... Basically, 'If disjunction is allowed, I will make sure everyone is dressed up like the Michelin Man 24/7, forever.'

Melcar
2014-08-07, 08:47 AM
So... would Celerity be possible to cast as the enemy casts MD or even when the spell was traveling towards the target?

sleepyphoenixx
2014-08-07, 09:22 AM
Does a wizard need UMD for activating an arcane wand?

You need to have a spell on your class list to activate a wand of it without UMD. Since there's a lot of really handy low level spells scattered among pretty much all lists getting UMD is a good idea even for full casters.

It's not like it's hard. A +10 competence item is affordable at mid-high levels, various boni to charisma, charisma checks etc. aren't all that expensive and useful for things beside UMD so even cross-class you should be able to reach a guaranteed DC 20 at higher levels. Even without the custom skill booster there's lots of ways to boost UMD. Low level wands are pretty cheap, too, so the payoff is usually worth it.

Psyren
2014-08-07, 09:46 AM
I think you could do this by setting "if an enemy starts casting Disjunction within X feet of me" as the trigger.
Then, your only real issue would be detecting the casting before it's too late.

Also, using the Pathfinder version of disjunction (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/mage-s-disjunction) will retain the functionality without destroying your wealth.

Vaz
2014-08-07, 11:13 AM
A CL20Disjunction has a range of 125ft.

Persistent Battlemagic Perception (Heroes of Battle) gives you 100ft aura to detect spellcasting automatically with 5 ranks in it, and with a DC of 24 you can identify the spell being cast. There's sadly no way of increasing BmP range, because it's personal range, and the 100ft range is covered within the spell range.

Wait, crap, it's discharged. You'd need a few Pearls of Power 3, then, which should be easily available by the time you're facing MDJ.

Curmudgeon
2014-08-07, 11:14 AM
Wings of Cover isn't going to help you if Mordenkainen's Disjunction is cast before you roll initiative.
You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed.

Forrestfire
2014-08-07, 11:30 AM
That is an issue, yeah. Depending on the level you're at (and I'd imagine it's high, if Disjunctions are being thrown around), Foresight can help with that problem.

Psyren
2014-08-07, 12:48 PM
Wings of Cover isn't going to help you if Mordenkainen's Disjunction is cast before you roll initiative.

Or after initiative, but before you act.

As Forrestfire mentioned though, Foresight + WoC will save you.

Vaz
2014-08-07, 02:50 PM
Sandshaper to make a paper thin sheet of sand with a size that is not more than a cubic ft in soze


It takes a minute to make per DC. So, -5 minutes. Even though you were affected by the Disjunction, on the next turn you make something that came into existence 5 minutes before, breaking line of effect, so you couldn't have been targeted by the Disjunction.

DeAnno
2014-08-07, 03:13 PM
The whole thing with Foresight vs. Mind Blank rears its ugly head at this point.

Psyren
2014-08-07, 03:20 PM
The whole thing with Foresight vs. Mind Blank rears its ugly head at this point.

What do you mean? Foresight doesn't read minds, it reads the future.

Slithery D
2014-08-07, 04:43 PM
What do you mean? Foresight doesn't read minds, it reads the future.

Mind Blank makes you immune to divination in 3.5 and Pathfinder. Arguably that means Foresight can't predict something a Mind Blanked person will do.

sleepyphoenixx
2014-08-07, 05:06 PM
Mind Blank makes you immune to divination in 3.5 and Pathfinder. Arguably that means Foresight can't predict something a Mind Blanked person will do.

The mechanics are pretty clear. Foresight is a buff and never interacts with the mindblanked creature.
Fluffwise it's more spidersense than true precognition, despite its name.

Martimus Prime
2014-08-07, 06:19 PM
I am a bit curious to know why, whenever someone brings up a contingency as a counter, no one seems to place as the contingency "whenever a caster within 125ft begins to cast Mordenkainen's Disjunction" so as to get off a protective effect before the spell ever even goes off. It would seem to me that an antimagic field centered on you (or your familiar) would do the trick, with the addition of having a stone "hat" with a shrink object placed on it that would be countered by the resulting antimagic field, providing a protective dome centered on you in the even that the contingency goes off. Heck, if it's on your familiar and it's outside of your little protective hat's reach, then the broken line of effect created by the hat's expansion would provide you with a well-protected area to cast some form of escape-related spell.

Alternatively, since anyone of high enough level to cast Mordenkainen's Disjunction should also be canny enough to study their targets before attacking, you could make it known that your character is carrying an unknown number of artifacts on his person at any given time. Even if it is merely a believable bluff, the risk of permanently losing casting ability might prove appropriately dissuasive.

Alternatively alternatively, psionics, if they're different in your setting. F*** mages, get gold.

Edited for clarity

Werephilosopher
2014-08-07, 07:32 PM
Why does Wings of Cover beat Disjunction? I fail to see why the Disjunction wouldn't tear through the Wings, considering it's a "magical effect."

Vaz
2014-08-07, 07:55 PM
You need Line of Effect, which is blocked by Wings of Cover.

Werephilosopher
2014-08-07, 08:05 PM
But if the Wings of Cover itself is disjoined, line of effect is no longer blocked. So why wouldn't MDJ then affect you?

Curmudgeon
2014-08-07, 08:15 PM
But if the Wings of Cover itself is disjoined, line of effect is no longer blocked. So why wouldn't MDJ then affect you?
Mordenkainen's Disjunction is an Instantaneous effect, so there's no "then". The spell affects everything to which it has line of effect within the radius, and nothing else. If there's no line of effect at the instant the spell goes off, there's no effect possible for MD.

Werephilosopher
2014-08-07, 08:18 PM
Ugh, doi. How'd I miss that? :smallannoyed:

Chronos
2014-08-07, 08:20 PM
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that there's a rule somewhere that if a burst destroys a barrier, the barrier doesn't break line of effect for the burst. The rule was intended for Fireballs burning through wooden walls, but it would apply just as well to disjoined force-wings.

And the carrying-artifacts defense (real or bluffed) isn't foolproof, either. That's when the enemy wizard, rather than casting it on you himself, instead makes a scroll of it and gives it to the enemy rogue (who has nothing to fear from disjoining an artifact).

Curmudgeon
2014-08-07, 08:56 PM
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that there's a rule somewhere that if a burst destroys a barrier, the barrier doesn't break line of effect for the burst. The rule was intended for Fireballs ...
It seems your memory is a bit capricious. This is an exception for the Fireball spell only.
If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does. Here's the normal rule for bursts:
A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, even including creatures that you can’t see. For instance, if you can designate a fourway intersection of corridors to be the point of origin of a dispel magic spell, the spell bursts in all four directions, possibly catching creatures that you can’t see because they’re around the corner from you but not from the point of origin. It can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners).

Forrestfire
2014-08-07, 09:12 PM
Mind Blank makes you immune to divination in 3.5 and Pathfinder. Arguably that means Foresight can't predict something a Mind Blanked person will do.

Whether or not it can predict what a mind-blanked person can do doesn't really do much to change that the spell outright says "you are never flat-footed." Sure, it could be ruled to not give you predictions and information on what best to do next, but the important bit is being able to immediate action when you need to.

Psyren
2014-08-07, 10:00 PM
Mind Blank makes you immune to divination in 3.5 and Pathfinder. Arguably that means Foresight can't predict something a Mind Blanked person will do.

None of that overrides "You are never surprised or flat-footed."


It seems your memory is a bit capricious. This is an exception for the Fireball spell only. Here's the normal rule for bursts:

Lightning Bolt (though not a burst) in another one that smashes through barriers.

Both spells are useful for tearing up enclosures like ships, shacks or wagons that have targets inside.

Curmudgeon
2014-08-08, 02:17 AM
That is an issue, yeah. Depending on the level you're at (and I'd imagine it's high, if Disjunctions are being thrown around), Foresight can help with that problem.
Of course, you don't have to have a 9th-level spell for that. Any character with at least 2 levels of Scout has the situation covered.
Uncanny Dodge (Ex): Starting at 2nd level, a scout cannot be caught flat-footed and reacts to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. This is greatly superior to the Uncanny Dodge that Rogues and Barbarians get.

Graypairofsocks
2014-08-08, 02:35 AM
Or at least houserule it into something more reasonable.

An idea for an houserule is:
You can choose to have the magic of the items disabled for a day instead of permanently destroyed.

sleepyphoenixx
2014-08-08, 02:51 AM
You can also get immunity to flat-footed and surprise with the Mark of the Stars feat. You'll need 2 levels of Heir of Syberis but it's useful for more builds than a scout dip. It also qualifies you for Mark of the Dauntless and gets you a good SLA.

Psyren
2014-08-08, 07:59 AM
You can also get it with a (albeit slightly more limited) 2nd level power. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/detectHostileIntent.htm)


An idea for an houserule is:
You can choose to have the magic of the items disabled for a day instead of permanently destroyed.

PF disables them for min./level - long enough to win the fight, short enough that you can use the loot in the next fight.

Vogonjeltz
2014-08-09, 12:46 PM
IotSV can stop it with either a Indigo or Violet Veil.

Veils duplicate layers of a prismatic wall. Prismatic walls are specifically vulnerable to Disjunction.


As for defenses... If you have a speaking familiar and you are trained in Spellcraft, have your familiar ready an action each round to speak the command word on a shrunken item (a cone hat is the usual suggestion) when someone tries to cast MDJ. The readied action will resolve before the disjunction and the shrunken item will unshrink and block it, as MDJ is a burst.

Only the caster can dismiss a spell, familiars aren't casters.


Selective Spell + Persistent Spell + Antimagic Field, using alternate metamagic cost abilities of course. Have more than one active if you think you'll need it.

Selective Spell makes it so you're personally unaffected by the spell and can completely ignore it, but everyone else still treats you as being in the AMF when targeting and resolving their spells and abilities. Methods that leave holes in the AMF such as Mastery of Shaping and Extraordinary Spell Aim don't actually work, since the Rules Compendium clarified that an AMF doesn't block line of effect for spells.

Couldn't the enemy target the disjunction inside the AMF then? It would bypass the AMF entirely and hit the subject/gear.

I see alot of discussion of Wings of Cover. There's a very important line in that spell:


Your foe could choose to attack the area in which you have taken cover with an area attack (such as a fireball spell).
In this case, you gain a +8 bonus to AC (if applicable) and a +4 bonus on Reflex saves.

Disjunction is an area spell. Wings not only provides an exception for area attacks like disjunction, it fails to provide a line allowing it to stop Disjunction (ala antimagic field).

Werephilosopher
2014-08-09, 02:48 PM
Disjunction is an area spell. Wings not only provides an exception for area attacks like disjunction, it fails to provide a line allowing it to stop Disjunction (ala antimagic field).

Disjunction is an area spell, but it does not "attack the area" the way Fireball does. It only effects certain things within the area.

sleepyphoenixx
2014-08-09, 03:29 PM
Veils duplicate layers of a prismatic wall. Prismatic walls are specifically vulnerable to Disjunction.
The veil is disjoined. It still blocks line of effect though since MDJ does not have the "breaks through barriers" clause (that Fireball/Lightning Bolt have).


Only the caster can dismiss a spell, familiars aren't casters.
Shrink Item doesn't need to be dismissed. The command word needs to be spoken by the original caster, true. A familiar can just drop it onto a solid surface to provide total cover though.


Couldn't the enemy target the disjunction inside the AMF then? It would bypass the AMF entirely and hit the subject/gear.

That's the point of using Selective Spell - it doesn't exclude a space, it just lets the selected creature ignore it. The other methods of casting in an AMF don't work that way, as Biff mentioned.


I see alot of discussion of Wings of Cover. There's a very important line in that spell:

Disjunction is an area spell. Wings not only provides an exception for area attacks like disjunction, it fails to provide a line allowing it to stop Disjunction (ala antimagic field).
MDJ is a burst, not a spread. That's what makes the difference. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#area)
Wings of Cover also can't be dispelled/disjoined since it's instantaneous. It just blocks line of effect for the crucial moment, preventing the spell from hitting you.

Vogonjeltz
2014-08-09, 04:41 PM
The veil is disjoined. It still blocks line of effect though since MDJ does not have the "breaks through barriers" clause (that Fireball/Lightning Bolt have).


Shrink Item doesn't need to be dismissed. The command word needs to be spoken by the original caster, true. A familiar can just drop it onto a solid surface to provide total cover though.


That's the point of using Selective Spell - it doesn't exclude a space, it just lets the selected creature ignore it. The other methods of casting in an AMF don't work that way, as Biff mentioned.


MDJ is a burst, not a spread. That's what makes the difference. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#area)
Wings of Cover also can't be dispelled/disjoined since it's instantaneous. It just blocks line of effect for the crucial moment, preventing the spell from hitting you.

Wings of cover doesn't make any distinction of types of AoE spells, it just allows a blanket area exception.

sleepyphoenixx
2014-08-09, 05:05 PM
Wings of cover doesn't make any distinction of types of AoE spells, it just allows a blanket area exception.

It only mentions that your foe doesn't have to waste his action and can instead to something else, like attack you with an area spell like Fireball (that circumvents total cover because it's a spread). Nowhere does it mention that the total cover granted is in any way different from the normal definition of total cover.