Immunity to Mordenkainen's Disjunction. I'm 99% Sure This Works.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magesDisjunction.htm

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#tenaciousMagic

Since Mordenkainen's disjunction ends magical effects as dispel magic does, would Tenacious Magic prevent Mordenkainen's disjunction from permanently ending any effect you toss it on?

So if you used a Tenacious miracle to, say, permanency your buffs, does that mean Mordenkainen's disjunction is useless against them in the long term?

[BowStreetRunner]

While I would agree that a Tenacious spell would be protected as the feat states against Disjunction, using Tenacious Magic on Permanency would only protect the Permanency itself, not the spell upon which Permanency had been cast. Note that certain spells cast with Permanency on yourself cannot be dispelled except by a caster of higher level than you were when you cast Permanency. But other than that, they are vulnerable to being dispelled normally, even if the Permanency itself were protected.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

While I would agree that a Tenacious spell would be protected as the feat states against Disjunction, using Tenacious Magic on Permanency would only protect the Permanency itself, not the spell upon which Permanency had been cast. Note that certain spells cast with Permanency on yourself cannot be dispelled except by a caster of higher level than you were when you cast Permanency. But other than that, they are vulnerable to being dispelled normally, even if the Permanency itself were protected.That's a very strange way to look at it.

[edit] A thought occurs: I believe Supernatural Abilities are immune to Mordenkainen's disjunction, yes? After all, they can't be dispelled at all.

[zergling.exe]

While it would work, DM permission and in-game research would be required to permanency most buffs. And after that you need to be epic level for tenacious magic so... why not just make an epic spell of equivalent effect?

[Âmesang]

A thought occurs: I believe Supernatural Abilities are immune to Mordenkainen's disjunction, yes? After all, they can't be dispelled at all.
Except by epic spells made using the dispel (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/seeds/dispel.htm) seed.

[DarkSoul]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magesDisjunction.htm

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#tenaciousMagic

Since Mordenkainen's disjunction ends magical effects as dispel magic does, would Tenacious Magic prevent Mordenkainen's disjunction from permanently ending any effect you toss it on?

So if you used a Tenacious miracle to, say, permanency your buffs, does that mean Mordenkainen's disjunction is useless against them in the long term?Tenacious Magic would bring back effects that are disjoined, yes. Your second line of questioning, however, has a couple issues:



A tenacious miracle doesn't really do much. You should probably plan on the effect you're using miracle to duplicate being tenacious.
Bowstreetrunner is correct that tenacious permanency applies to the permanency, not the spell made permanent. Using true seeing as an example, if you want permanent tenacious true seeing, make the true seeing tenacious, then make the true seeing permanent.


I would rule that casting permanency on a True Seeing doesn't actually add a dispellable permanency aura, it just changes the duration of the spell in the same way that extend or persistent spell do. Taking Tenacious Magic (True Seeing) would protect a permanent spell from disjunction, but Tenacious Magic (Permanency, or Miracle duplicating it) wouldn't do anything. I feel that's pretty solidly in the realm of "Rules as Intended" with a dose of "this allows it all to make sense".

[Âmesang]

Would it be unbalancing to skip the middleman and simply have limited wish/wish/miracle replicate the effected of a permanencied spell? As in, instead of casting arcane sight and following it up with permanency, you merely replicate a "permanent arcane sight" with a single use of limited wish/wish/miracle (with the same XP cost and caster level limitations) under the "produce any other effect whose power level is in line with the above effects" option.

Though I imagine you'd hit some trouble with spells they normally couldn't replicate anyway, like the 9th-level teleportation circle.

[DarkSoul]

Would it be unbalancing to skip the middleman and simply have limited wish/wish/miracle replicate the effected of a permanencied spell? As in, instead of casting arcane sight and following it up with permanency, you merely replicate a "permanent arcane sight" with a single use of limited wish/wish/miracle (with the same XP cost and caster level limitations) under the "produce any other effect whose power level is in line with the above effects" option.

Though I imagine you'd hit some trouble with spells they normally couldn't replicate anyway, like the 9th-level teleportation circle.I don't see why you couldn't do something like that. I'd even go so far as to allow something like that to allow some spells that normally can't be made permanent (such as the aforementioned true seeing) for the full 5k xp cost. If it's a normally allowed spell, I could see a wish replicate permanent arcane sight for the normal xp cost, possibly with a slight tax included (500-1k xp).

Relating to this thread, I'd still say that for a permanent arcane sight you still need to make arcane sight tenacious to affect your wish-replicated permanent version. I treat wish- and miracle-replicated spells as the actual spell for purposes of effects like this, not as a wish or miracle.

[Quertus]

You'll probably want to make both the buff and the permanency tenacious. Since pregnancy has a permanent duration, and the text of the spell talks about dispelling the permanency.

[flare'90]

Since pregnancy has a permanent duration,
It usually last about 9 months in human females, but I admit that other races might vary a bit.

[Psyren]

That's a very strange way to look at it.

No, BowStreet is right - Permanency itself is sitting on the caster (with a Permanent duration) alongside the companion spell. You would need both to be Tenacious - if Permanency is protected but the spell is not, it can be dispelled normally, and if the companion spell is protected but Permanency is not, the Permanency can be pulled out from underneath it and the spell will only have its original duration to fall back on.

The bigger problem though is that you're relying on an epic solution. Once Epic Spellcasting enters the picture all bets are off - the players and monsters are basically writing their own spells at that point, to say nothing of Wish, Miracle, and Divine Salient Abilities.

The easier and much lower-level way to counter Disjunction is by blocking line of effect somehow. It's a burst, so it cannot penetrate enclosures or go around corners; any immediate action spell that will do this (e.g. Wings of Cover) is therefore a viable counter, and chances are that you can repeat castings from your 2nd-4th level slots than another caster has 9th-level slots to spend.

Pathfinder actually has both routes pre-epic - outright immunity via Spellbane (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/aroden-s-spellbane), or reflexive blocking via Emergency Force Sphere. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/e/emergency-force-sphere) (Of course, PF Disjunction is also tamer so needing a silver-bullet counter is less imperative too, though getting hit with it can still ruin your day in a fight.)

[Anthrowhale]

Otiluke's Suppressing Field plausibly provides a soft immunity to Disjunction that might be occasionally useful.

With Wings of Cover you might run out of immediate actions before opponents run out of standard actions as there are fewer sources of bonus immediate actions than bonus standard actions.

[Douglas]

The bigger problem though is that you're relying on an epic solution. Once Epic Spellcasting enters the picture all bets are off - the players and monsters are basically writing their own spells at that point, to say nothing of Wish, Miracle, and Divine Salient Abilities.
If I'm building a character where Epic Spellcasting is available, one of my top priorities is usually making a Ward based spell that says "Disjunction doesn't work on me. Oh, and [various other spells] don't either. But Disjunction's the important one." It's quite simple, straightforward, and relatively balanced as epic spells go, and also incredibly useful.

[Mr Adventurer]

Wouldn't the Disjunction burst simply disjoin the Wings of Cover (or whatever), and then continue on to disjoin you too?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Wouldn't the Disjunction burst simply disjoin the Wings of Cover (or whatever), and then continue on to disjoin you too?Unless otherwise stated, bursts stop whenever they hit an object and go no farther, so the wings of cover effect would get disjoined, but the burst wouldn't go past it, meaning the wings of cover effect did its job perfectly.

Also, the Dungeonscape item, clasp of safeguarding will protect one of your items from being disjoined, though it won't protect your buffs. However, it's fairly cheap, and netting yourself several of them will aid you in protecting your WBL.

[Mr Adventurer]

The wings of cover aren't an object, though.

[Psyren]

The wings of cover aren't an object, though.

It explicitly grants total cover; from the Magic rules:


A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, even including creatures that you can’t see. It can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners).

[Deophaun]

Not sure what good wings of cover would do versus disjunction, since disjunction is an area attack, so the wings will only give you a +8 to AC and +4 to Reflex saves, neither of which disjunction cares about.

[Forrestfire]

Disjunction is an area attack, but wings of cover does two things: give the boost to AC/Reflex saves, and grant total cover against the effect. Spreads and emanations don't care about that total cover, so you'd use the bonus against them. Bursts do, so it stops the effect entirely.

[Quertus]

BTW, has anyone ever used a spell blade set to disjunction? Ring of counter spells?


It usually last about 9 months in human females, but I admit that other races might vary a bit.

Darn auto correct :smalltongue:


Otiluke's Suppressing Field plausibly provides a soft immunity to Disjunction that might be occasionally useful.

With Wings of Cover you might run out of immediate actions before opponents run out of standard actions as there are fewer sources of bonus immediate actions than bonus standard actions.

... Bonus... immediate actions?

So, you just need to give yourself a non-magical version of wings of cover, that therefore cannot be dispelled, and you're good.

[DarkSoul]

So, you just need to give yourself a non-magical version of wings of cover, that therefore cannot be dispelled, and you're good.Like a tower shield?

[Cruiser1]

BTW, has anyone ever used a spell blade set to disjunction? Ring of counter spells?
No, a Spellblade (PGtF) only affects spells directly targeted at the wielder, and not area spells like Disjunction. A standard Ring of Counterspells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#counterspells) only affects spells of levels 1-6, and not 9th level spells like Disjunction.

[Forrestfire]

Like a tower shield?

Oh right, yeah. A tower shield would work. See here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm#shieldTower):


This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.

When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a -2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance.

Emphasis mine. The only action "cost" on using a tower shield for total cover is not attacking in a given round. I believe that RAW it'd still allow you to use your own non-attack spells, since it only gives you total cover, not them... As long as you can deal with the 50% arcane spell failure chance in some way.

[Mr Adventurer]

It explicitly grants total cover; from the Magic rules:

Yeah, but it gets dispelled before the burst gets to you.

[Forrestfire]

Yeah, but it gets dispelled before the burst gets to you.

The burst only happens once. It's not a rolling explosion, it's an instantaneous effect. You use wings of cover to break line of effect to it, the wings of cover grants you total cover and is disjoined, and then the spell's over and you're safe.

[Mr Adventurer]

The SRD says:
Burst, Emanation, or Spread
Most spells that affect an area function as a burst, an emanation, or a spread. In each case, you select the spell’s point of origin and measure its effect from that point.

A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, even including creatures that you can’t see. It can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst’s area defines how far from the point of origin the spell’s effect extends.

An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres.

A spread spell spreads out like a burst but can turn corners. You select the point of origin, and the spell spreads out a given distance in all directions. Figure the area the spell effect fills by taking into account any turns the spell effect takes.

That says "in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners" - which it isn't - and "a spread spell spreads out like a burst" - so they both spread out from their point of origin to the limit of their area.

[Psyren]

Yeah, but it gets dispelled before the burst gets to you.

By which point the Disjunction is gone:


Duration: Instantaneous


Instantaneous
The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.

[Quertus]

No, a Spellblade (PGtF) only affects spells directly targeted at the wielder, and not area spells like Disjunction. A standard Ring of Counterspells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#counterspells) only affects spells of levels 1-6, and not 9th level spells like Disjunction.

Explains why I've never heard anyone use them for that purpose before, thanks.

[Powerdork]

That says "in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners"

The thing you don't seem to be getting (and I'm sorry if you're arguing another angle from what I read) is that the 'other words' are merely a guide to understanding why the rule (total cover protects people and items from bursts) is in place.
Think of it like... rays of light extending out until they hit a wall. That wall is going to stop them. The vast majority of rays are not going to hit whatever's behind that wall, even if the light is shone at the corner where the wall turns into another wall. The light does not (for our purposes) bend, nor does it pass through a wall-corner.
In this instance, even though it doesn't have corners, wings of cover is still effectively a wall, as it is total cover. It blocks the effect.

[Âmesang]

The Arms and Equipment Guide has a "ring of greater counterspelling" which could store and counter a spell up to 9th-level, but I fear it may have been superseded by the Magic Item Compendium's "ring of greater counterspells," which is still limited to 6th-level (but has an alternative function which could enable you to counterspell Mordenkainen's disjunction, anyway).

[Mr Adventurer]

By which point the Disjunction is gone:

You're suggesting that Disjunction only affects one magic item or effect in its area - the closest one? Or you're saying that the part that says it spreads out from its point of origin is a lie? Both seem absurd to me.


The thing you don't seem to be getting (and I'm sorry if you're arguing another angle from what I read) is that the 'other words' are merely a guide to understanding why the rule (total cover protects people and items from bursts) is in place.
Think of it like... rays of light extending out until they hit a wall. That wall is going to stop them. The vast majority of rays are not going to hit whatever's behind that wall, even if the light is shone at the corner where the wall turns into another wall. The light does not (for our purposes) bend, nor does it pass through a wall-corner.
In this instance, even though it doesn't have corners, wings of cover is still effectively a wall, as it is total cover. It blocks the effect.

No, I understand how corners and line of effect works.

To use your analogy, the wings of cover aren't a wall - they're a window. The light hits it first, and goes straight through.

[Name1]

To use your analogy, the wings of cover aren't a wall - they're a window. The light hits it first, and goes straight through.

The problem is this line: It can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin.

Since Disjunction is gone the moment it is cast, it doesn't matter that it dispels the cover: It does't go beyond it.
If the Wings of Cover are like windows, the Disjunction would be like a bird on a hot summers day: It hits the window and slides down while you laugh at it.

[Forrestfire]

No, he's saying that mordenkainen's disjunction affects every magic item in its area when it's cast that does not have total cover. Because it's an instantaneous burst. See below for how this works:


1. You're in combat with an enemy mage, and he doesn't like your buff spells and items. He casts disjunction on the gridline marked with the cyan star.

https://i.gyazo.com/e3cbef094e868494b79f070c8bb3894a.png

2. But you like your buffs, so you can wings of cover in response, creating a sphere of force that gives you total cover around you and granting you total cover against the burst.

https://i.gyazo.com/733a38ea8c8cf54e75fcee98a6e66161.png

3. The burst continues now that you're done interrupting it. Wings of cover lasts long enough to give you cover against one spell, which it does. Note that since this is a burst, it will likewise be blocked by the stone wall, keeping the magic item resting behind it safe.

https://i.gyazo.com/c5f87bc8fe221c60345dea7673f72f29.png

4. The end result of this is a disjoined wings of cover effect, but since for that to happen, the burst needs to already be resolved, you are fine. The spell is instantaneous. It only makes the AoE once. It doesn't matter that it got rid of the force sphere; you're safe because it was in the way.

https://i.gyazo.com/e7b06266ded6c9db1c0679f10bc40998.png

[Douglas]

If the Wings of Cover are like windows, the Disjunction would be like a bird on a hot summers day: It hits the window and slides down while you laugh at it.
Ah, but Disjunction destroys Wings of Cover. If that analogy is appropriate, it would require a bird heavy enough to shatter the window, and in that case wouldn't the bird probably come through the (now broken) window to hit something on the other side?

It's not part of the general rules, but there is precedent in the Fireball spell that an instantaneous spell that destroys a barrier determines the rest of its area as if the barrier were not there. By strict RAW that is a special property of Fireball specifically, but it's also reasonable to argue that it should apply to any spell that destroys barriers, with Fireball just happening to be the only well known spell that commonly might.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Ah, but Disjunction destroys Wings of Cover. If that analogy is appropriate, it would require a bird heavy enough to shatter the window, and in that case wouldn't the bird probably come through the (now broken) window to hit something on the other side?Even if the bird breaks the glass (and it does), it would stop dead. Both figuratively and literally.


It's not part of the general rules, but there is precedent in the Fireball spell that an instantaneous spell that destroys a barrier determines the rest of its area as if the barrier were not there. By strict RAW that is a special property of Fireball specifically, but it's also reasonable to argue that it should apply to any spell that destroys barriers, with Fireball just happening to be the only well known spell that commonly might.Fireball is a spread, not a burst, and burst effects end as soon as they hit a barrier -- in this case, the wings of cover.

[DarkSoul]

To use your analogy, the wings of cover aren't a wall - they're a window. The light hits it first, and goes straight through.Using the analogy of Disjunction being a burst of light, Wings of Cover is not a window. It's a solid, opaque, but instantly photo-degrading wall. It breaks down completely when struck by light. There's another one behind it, that being whatever magic you have on your person inside the Wings of Cover. The instantaneous burst of light strikes the first wall and is gone. The wall, having been struck by the light, degrades into nothing. The one it was protecting is still untouched because there is no light present by the time the first wall is gone.

Bursts are instant and don't flow like spreads do. Corners block them, and so does cover. Wings of Cover provides, well, cover. Disjunction hits it and destroys it, but it still protects everything inside.

If it helps to think of it as bulletproof glass, and disjunction is a bullet, great. It stopped the first shot but it's completely starred over and won't stop another one, but whatever was behind the glass is fine.

[Psyren]

You're suggesting that Disjunction only affects one magic item or effect in its area - the closest one? Or you're saying that the part that says it spreads out from its point of origin is a lie? Both seem absurd to me.

I'm saying it's a burst, and thus the effect stops whenever line of effect is broken. I... don't really know how to say it any clearer than that.



No, I understand how corners and line of effect works.

To use your analogy, the wings of cover aren't a wall - they're a window. The light hits it first, and goes straight through.

Clearly you don't, because you're confusing line of sight with line of effect.

[Mr Adventurer]

No, he's saying that mordenkainen's disjunction affects every magic item in its area when it's cast that does not have total cover. Because it's an instantaneous burst. See below for how this works:


1. You're in combat with an enemy mage, and he doesn't like your buff spells and items. He casts disjunction on the gridline marked with the cyan star.

https://i.gyazo.com/e3cbef094e868494b79f070c8bb3894a.png

2. But you like your buffs, so you can wings of cover in response, creating a sphere of force that gives you total cover around you and granting you total cover against the burst.

https://i.gyazo.com/733a38ea8c8cf54e75fcee98a6e66161.png

3. The burst continues now that you're done interrupting it. Wings of cover lasts long enough to give you cover against one spell, which it does. Note that since this is a burst, it will likewise be blocked by the stone wall, keeping the magic item resting behind it safe.

https://i.gyazo.com/c5f87bc8fe221c60345dea7673f72f29.png

4. The end result of this is a disjoined wings of cover effect, but since for that to happen, the burst needs to already be resolved, you are fine. The spell is instantaneous. It only makes the AoE once. It doesn't matter that it got rid of the force sphere; you're safe because it was in the way.

https://i.gyazo.com/e7b06266ded6c9db1c0679f10bc40998.png


These are absolutely beautiful :). But I know how cover works.


I'm saying it's a burst, and thus the effect stops whenever line of effect is broken. I... don't really know how to say it any clearer than that.

But the rules say it spreads out from its point of origin.


Clearly you don't, because you're confusing line of sight with line of effect.

Hey! There's no need to be a **** about it.

None of what I've said demonstrates a misunderstanding of the cover rules, which I understand perfectly well.

[Name1]

But the rules say it spreads out from its point of origin.


Are we looking at different spells, perhaps? I'm looking at Mage's Disjunction (d20srd.com), because I believed it to be the same spell...

[Psyren]

But the rules say it spreads out from its point of origin.

That doesn't make it a spread - the "Area" line in the spell entry defines it as a burst, because from the Magic Overview that is where bursts and spreads are defined.

"Area: All magical effects and magic items within a 40-ft.-radius burst"



None of what I've said demonstrates a misunderstanding of the cover rules, which I understand perfectly well.

But you don't. Total Cover blocks bursts. The citations for this have been provided numerous times.

You're imagining Disjunction as some kind of wave that hits your barrier first, takes it out and then keeps going. That's not how an instantaneous spell (nor indeed time itself in D&D) works.

[Name1]

You're imagining Disjunction as some kind of wave that hits your barrier first, takes it out and then keeps going. That's not how an instantaneous spell (nor indeed time itself in D&D) works.

Unless it's a Fireball. A Fireball works like that.

[DarkSoul]

Unless it's a Fireball. A Fireball works like that.Fireball is a spread, that's why it works the way it does. Disjunction is a burst, which total cover blocks.

[Name1]

Fireball is a spread, that's why it works the way it does. Disjunction is a burst, which total cover blocks.

Yes, I meant that it's an instantaneous spell (and I do believe normal spreads went around cover instead of through cover, though I could be misremembering that).