Counterspelling using Disjunction

[Melcar]

I was looking for informations concerning whether or not Mordenkainen's Disjunction can be used as a counterpell the same way dispel or greater dispel magic can?

I ask because every rule text about counterspelling mentiones only dispel and greater dispel. I assume that spells like reaving dispel can be used, but what about disjunction? I specifically meant, when you have not identified your opponents spell and thus are blindly trying to dispel.

I would assume by RAW that it cant, but I might be missing something, which could lead to by RAI you can?


ANy comments would be helpful.

Thanks

[atemu1234]

Banana, square dolphin.
Was that comment helpful?

I'll be more productive once I look at the spell. Thought the joke was funny.

[Melcar]

Banana, square dolphin.
Was that comment helpful?

He he... I actually thought I might get something like that once I had posted it. It made me smile, so yes helpful indeed! :smallwink:

[Grooke]

I ask because every rule text about counterspelling mentiones only dispel and greater dispel.

Actually, the rule only mentions Dispel Magic. However, Great Dispel works because "This spell functions like dispel magic". Reaving also because of the same wording (it also explicitly mentions it "When casting a targeted dispel or counterspelll, you can choose to reave each spell...").

Disjunction does not contain this wording, and therefore can't be used to counterspell.

[mabriss lethe]

I'm afraid it can't negate a spell as its being cast. The spell description only allows it to negate existing spell effects. That said, you can still ready an action to cast it to end any effect in range as soon as it's been cast, (but it won't undo the damage.) It's also not selective. It takes down everything in range including any friendly buffs and all magic equipment. (both your toys and your prospective loot.) It's kind of the tac-nuke of D&D. Nobody wins when it starts getting thrown around.

[Red Fel]

I was looking for informations concerning whether or not Mordenkainen's Disjunction can be used as a counterpell the same way dispel or greater dispel magic can?

I would say no, and here's why: It doesn't say. Despite all logic and reason, spells only do what they say they do, nothing more.

Now, if a spell incorporates another spell by reference, that's one thing. For example, Polymorph (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorph.htm) notes that it functions like Alter Self (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/alterSelf.htm), with a few distinctions. And that's fine; if that's the case, it functions as a different form of the other spell, and can generally do as that spell can do, subject to the listed differences.

But look at Disjunction (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magesDisjunction.htm). The only way it refers to Dispel Magic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm) is in the sense that it produces a comparable outcome - the termination of spells and spell-like abilities. See the text:
All magical effects and magic items 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), and each permanent magic item must make a successful Will save or be turned into a normal item. An item in a creature’s possession uses its own Will save bonus or its possessor’s Will save bonus, whichever is higher.

In other words, it describes the effect of disjunction as "ending the effect as a dispel magic spell does[.]" It does not, however, incorporate the various effects of a Dispel Magic spell, such as targeted dispelling, area dispelling, or counterspelling. Rather, it ends an ongoing magical effect, in the same way that Dispel Magic does.

So, I'd say that, no, it's not a counterspell. Unless, of course, you're countering Disjunction.

As an aside, using Disjunction to counter a spell? Even if you could, it's applying an atomic bomb to an anthill. The spell can literally unmake the will of deities, and you're using it to counterspell?

[Psyren]

Nitpick - you can use disjunction to counterspell another disjunction. Beyond that though, as written it cannot counterspell anything.

[Melcar]

I'm afraid it can't negate a spell as its being cast. The spell description only allows it to negate existing spell effects. That said, you can still ready an action to cast it to end any effect in range as soon as it's been cast, (but it won't undo the damage.) It's also not selective. It takes down everything in range including any friendly buffs and all magic equipment. (both your toys and your prospective loot.) It's kind of the tac-nuke of D&D. Nobody wins when it starts getting thrown around.

This is a bit of topic, but magic items do get save against the disjoining effect; right? It says: "All magical effects and magic items within the radius of the spell, except for those that you carry or touch, are disjoined." But it also says: "[...] each permanent magic item must make a successful Will save or be turned into a normal item."

So its not that dangerous, or am I again not getting everything?


EDIT: And thanks so far, for the response!

[Psyren]

So its not that dangerous, or am I again not getting everything?

It is still extremely dangerous. Nearly any caster capable of throwing 9th-level spells around is going to have a very high save DC on their spells (a minimum DC of 23) and magic item saves tend to be extremely low. Now, attended items do get to use your own save if it is better - however, the classes that tend to rely on magic items the most (i.e. martial classes) also tend to be the ones with the lowest will saves, leaving them impacted the most heavily by this spell.

[Bronk]

So its not that dangerous, or am I again not getting everything?


Well, aside from destroying your own loot, if they're carrying an artifact of some kind there's also the possibility that you'll permanently lose all spellcasting ability while also attracting the attention of a 'powerful being'. Not a great combo.

[Bad Wolf]

I'd say yes, purely based on fluff. It's like using a nuke to squash a cockroach.

[Melcar]

Well, aside from destroying your own loot, if they're carrying an artifact of some kind there's also the possibility that you'll permanently lose all spellcasting ability while also attracting the attention of a 'powerful being'. Not a great combo.

Indeed, but usually wizards has good will saves. I agree that vs a melee type NPC or PC, the spell is highly likely destroying all magic items, but against someone with high will save its not that bad.

A level 20 Wizard, could have something like a save dc of 36 on disjunction and could have +34-ish will save (with the right items and spells)... so yeah it would not be nice, but not a certain destruction of items.

[Mr Adventurer]

So it's fail only on a 1? And how many items do you think that Wizard 20 is carrying? ;)

[Melcar]

So it's fail only on a 1? And how many items do you think that Wizard 20 is carrying? ;)

Yeah... alot, but its one save per item, so only 5 % of items go. Indeed I would assume a level 20 wiz, to carry on per item slot, at least!

Anyways. I have deducted, from multiple posts here, that Mordenkainen's Disjunction cannot be used to counterspell, as a replacement for dispel/greater dispel magic. Which did correlate with my own assumption. Thanks.

[Red Fel]

About the "nuking your own loot" bit, you do realize that the spell calls out an exception on that, right? Quoth the text (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magesDisjunction.htm):
All magical effects and magic items within the radius of the spell, except for those that you carry or touch, are disjoined.
(Emphasis added.)

So, yeah. Your own gear is totally safe. I mean, if you're holding or wearing it, you're carrying/touching it, aren't you? If it's in your bag, you're carrying it, right? You're fine.

Your allies will hate your guts, though.

Further, with regard to the "accidentally targeting someone with an artifact" bit, there's still no guarantee. Again, quoth the text:
Even artifacts are subject to disjunction, though there is only a 1% chance per caster level of actually affecting such powerful items. Additionally, if an artifact is destroyed, you must make a DC 25 Will save or permanently lose all spellcasting abilities.
(Emphasis added.)

In other words, assuming a 20th-level full-progression caster with, I'll say +4 CL from various modifiers, he has less than a 25% chance to accidentally disjoin an artifact that was concealed on his enemy's person. And as others have noted, at those levels, DC 25 on a Will save is cake for a caster. It basically requires absurdly bad luck.

[Mr Adventurer]

But the stakes!

[Mr Adventurer]

Quick story time: in a game of 'adventurers against Thay', the game quickly turned into who could successfully get off a Disjunction and affect the other caster first. We called it, and still do to this day, Disjunction Wars. The arms race included all the usual Contingencies but also "SLAs can't be counter spelled, therefore Divine Magician Hierophant" and "Quicken Wall of Force -> Disjunction to break Line of Effect to prevent counter spelling until the Disjunction rips through the Wall of Force and gets you anyway".

[Melcar]

Not only does magic items get a saving throw, but so does an artifact. So theres first a low risk of disjunction, and then a save... Indeed if I knew my enemy was carrying an artifact I would use reaving dispell instead, but the risk is low I would say.


Question is, whether or not it is the casters base save or casters total save the items use. I dont see that to be clear. One the one hand it would make sense that it would only be base save, since high ability score should not affect items, but on the other hand it does says the casters save, without specifying... so that could be total, with all modifiers. ANy thoughts?

[Red Fel]

Question is, whether or not it is the casters base save or casters total save the items use. I dont see that to be clear. One the one hand it would make sense that it would only be base save, since high ability score should not affect items, but on the other hand it does says the casters save, without specifying... so that could be total, with all modifiers. ANy thoughts?

Magic items use their own save, or the caster's save, whichever is higher. And by "save" I mean "after all modifiers," because that's what the text pretty much says:
An item in a creature’s possession uses its own Will save bonus or its possessor’s Will save bonus, whichever is higher.

It does not say "base save", it says "Will save bonus." In other words, look at the +X in the Will save entry - the overall bonus, based on class levels, ability modifiers, and any other modifiers. That's the bonus. That's what you use, if it's higher than the item's save.

And it might not be. According to this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#damagingMagicItems), "[a] magic item’s saving throw bonus equals 2 + one-half its caster level (round down). The only exceptions to this are intelligent magic items, which make Will saves based on their own Wisdom scores." A high-CL magic item could have a fairly substantial save bonus, and this bonus applies to all saves, as opposed to a character's bonuses, which can vary between Fortitude, Will, and Reflex. So if the item's bonus is higher, you use that.

[Renen]

I'd say yes, purely based on fluff. It's like using a nuke to squash a cockroach.

But cockroaches have Nuke Immunity as an Ex Ability

[Psyren]

About the "nuking your own loot" bit, you do realize that the spell calls out an exception on that, right? Quoth the text (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magesDisjunction.htm):
(Emphasis added.)

So, yeah. Your own gear is totally safe. I mean, if you're holding or wearing it, you're carrying/touching it, aren't you? If it's in your bag, you're carrying it, right? You're fine.

Stuff you already own isn't loot. Loot is the stuff the enemy is wearing. That's why you "loot" it.

[Red Fel]

Stuff you already own isn't loot. Loot is the stuff the enemy is wearing. That's why you "loot" it.

I will concede the alternative definition, although I assert that something which you have looted is also "loot." But yes. Using Disjunction is a fine option when facing monstrous enemies without wealth to be pillaged; when confronting those you plan to rob, it is a noticeably less sound tactic.

[Chronos]

On the other hand, the sorts of enemies that don't carry loot also tend to be the sorts of enemies that wouldn't have spell effects on them that need ending.

[Crake]

It takes down everything in range including any friendly buffs and all magic equipment. (both your toys and your prospective loot.)


All magical effects and magic items within the radius of the spell, except for those that you carry or touch, are disjoined.

Emphasis mine, a lot of people seem to forget that it doesn't affect the caster or his gear at all