Opinions requested: How discourteous is "Dysjunction" in a highly optimized game?

[lynxd80]

Greetings Playground!

Allow me to lay the brick work for my request. I've been running a 3.5 campaign for a group for almost 4 years. The party is just about to hit level 17 and consists of 6 players and 1 NPC. One of the players has joined the main party's enemies, though, and has knocked the group to 5 + Npc. Their group consist of a PHB Ranger whom is a Dhamphire , an Elf Samurai/ Warblade/ iajutsu Master, A Were-cat Rogue/Swordsage/Avenger, a Gargoyle Sorceror/Warblade/Swiftblade, and a Necropolitain Wizard. The character each have stats with their very lowest number being 20|+5 and highest scores being between 28|+9 and 38|+12, at least 2 levels worth of templates on them, A cloak of resistance +5, items that grant +6 bonuses to all of their stats, Items that boosts skills up by at least +15 or better, Soulfire items/armor, Personal Anti-magic fields, Will'o Wisp Invisibility, and Silence spells, and Ect. Some players have artifacts and some have legacy items. The Wizard casts spells at least 3-4 levels higher than his actual level. I could go on, but I think you guys can garner we are running a High Optimized campaign...

Now then, all of my players (at this point) are fairly powerful and I am finding it harder and harder to have meaningful encounters and battles with their foes. Truthfully, I wanted to have a campaign that reached level 20 naturally, but find that with all of their things... I just can't seem to make anything or find anything that they can't slay in a matter of 2-3 rounds or less! I've stated that i wouldn't use the "Mage's Dysjunction " spell in the past as my most experienced player (the wizard) requested I not as it is "ungentlemanly" to do so. But, looking at the spell...

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

I realize that a Dc25 Will is not difficult. The player with the weakest will is about to gain items that will raise their will to 23... To even use the spell against them, I would need to find a way to incress the dc, but I can't really pump it to anything that would be easy to fail. So, that said... How terrible would it be for me, as the Dm, to actually use such a spell in order to even the playing field for them?

Your thoughts and collective knowledge are much appreciated! Thank you!

~Lynx D.

[legomaster00156]

A good rule of thumb is that you use the same tools the players use. If they're optimizing, so can you. If they cast Disjunction, so can you.

[AnachroNinja]

Make sure they KNOW that you are going to start using it. Springing it in them would be kind of a **** move. Give them a chance to know and protect themselves somewhat.

[Geddy2112]

I just can't seem to make anything or find anything that they can't slay in a matter of 2-3 rounds or less! I've stated that i wouldn't use the "Mage's Dysjunction " spell in the past as my most experienced player (the wizard) requested I not as it is "ungentlemanly" to do so. But, looking at the spell...

I realize that a Dc25 Will is not difficult. The player with the weakest will is about to gain items that will raise their will to 23... To even use the spell against them, I would need to find a way to incress the dc, but I can't really pump it to anything that would be easy to fail. So, that said... How terrible would it be for me, as the Dm, to actually use such a spell in order to even the playing field for them?
Under most circumstances, this spell is under the gentleman's agreement your player mentioned. The hard part is not the DC, but the fact it auto negates spells and basically creates an AMF. You should understand the wizard player told you "I won't use it, don't use it against us".
That said...


A good rule of thumb is that you use the same tools the players use. If they're optimizing, so can you. If they cast Disjunction, so can you.
This. Don't hesitate to throw CR/ECL 20 encounters against the party. Optimize the crap out of NPC's of their level-you have to build enemies and encounters to their level. They are running very high optimized characters- optimize back. This does not mean de facto mages disjunction, but it does mean pulling all the same tricks they can, and then some.

[icefractal]

Optimize the crap out of NPC's of their level-you have to build enemies and encounters to their level. They are running very high optimized characters- optimize back.One caveat though - I've found that in practice, this is a pain in the ass unless you have a lot of free time for game prep.

For one thing, for most characters, optimizing the build isn't enough, you need to have the tactics down too to get full effect from it.

For another, you have to optimize foes differently than you'd optimize PCs. Glass cannons don't make for very fun opposition, when the most likely result is "kill one PC and then get stomped". And defensively, being out of LoS/LoE is often the most practical method, but it's one that will drag fights out and annoy most players.

So I'm not ruling it out, but "fight optimization with optimization" is not a sure-fire strategy.

[ryu]

Well at really hilariously high levels of optimization a person hit with disjunction is entirely capable of getting out of dodge and getting any magic items back with XP free wishes to get back to WBL. There's also the problem of an infinite supply of worthless artifacts from spell component pouches and and the hell that plays with anyone careless enough to cast the spell directly rather than by proxy. I guess what I'm saying here is that this is a game about deciding just how far down the rabbit hole you're willing to go. Mages disjunction is pretty gosh darn diddly dang far deep.

[DarkSoul]

I just discussed Disjunction with the wizard in the group I'm DMing. I told him I'm considering using it down the road, but that if I did I'd be changing the spell so it auto-dispels all spells in the area and all non-artifact magical items are affected as though by a targeted dispel magic, possibly with a bonus on the dispel check. Any affected item shuts off for a period of time rather than becoming non-magical.

[ryu]

I just discussed Disjunction with the wizard in the group I'm DMing. I told him I'm considering using it down the road, but that if I did I'd be changing the spell so it auto-dispels all spells in the area and all non-artifact magical items are affected as though by a targeted dispel magic, possibly with a bonus on the dispel check. Any affected item shuts off for a period of time rather than becoming non-magical.

That's another way of doing things. I was just pointing out the most likely form of high optimization retaliation in a fully RAW game.

[Matticussama]

I just discussed Disjunction with the wizard in the group I'm DMing. I told him I'm considering using it down the road, but that if I did I'd be changing the spell so it auto-dispels all spells in the area and all non-artifact magical items are affected as though by a targeted dispel magic, possibly with a bonus on the dispel check. Any affected item shuts off for a period of time rather than becoming non-magical.

That is essentially what Pathfinder does with their Disjunction; the magic items are only dispelled for 1 minute/caster level instead of being destroyed on a failed saving throw, unless they fail their saving throw with a Natural 1, in which case the item is permanently destroyed. I usually bring this into my 3.5 Games to make Disjunction usable in normal play without the threat of permanently destroying everyone's magic items. It helps to take down buffs and temporarily negate christmas tree effects without absolutely upending WBL.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/spells/mageSDisjunction.html

[Malroth]

Well it should entirely depend on how you feel about an army of mirror mephits bringing in Efreeti simulacra to replace items lost and then some, if this kind of behavior is kosher at your table so should be disjunction, since both practices effectively counters the other, but likewise they should be banned silmataneously if true high op actually frightens you.

[icefractal]

Nah, the Calvinball realm of NI is several notches above Disjunction in the high-op zone. The counter-point to Disjunction, and the reason that I'd be reluctant to eliminate it in a high-op game, is giant stacks of Persisted buffs. Without Disjunction, buff-stacks become the default state, and I think the arms race between removal methods and removal protection methods is more interesting than that.

That said, if you want it to be less devastating you can always use the Pathfinder version - items are only temporarily suppressed. It still retains plenty of utility as a buff-removal tool. Which it is possible to protect against, I should note, it's not like Disjunction is undefeatable.

[Fizban]

The character each have stats with their very lowest number being 20|+5 and highest scores being between 28|+9 and 38|+12, at least 2 levels worth of templates on them, A cloak of resistance +5, items that grant +6 bonuses to all of their stats, Items that boosts skills up by at least +15 or better, Soulfire items/armor, Personal Anti-magic fields, Will'o Wisp Invisibility, and Silence spells, and Ect. Some players have artifacts and some have legacy items. The Wizard casts spells at least 3-4 levels higher than his actual level. I could go on, but I think you guys can garner we are running a High Optimized campaign.
Well that's your problem right there. If you want to run normal encounters you can't have characters running around with what sounds like free templates, no semblance of WBL, and possibly just made up stuff (will o' wisp invisibility?). In order to challenge a large party of overpowered characters, you need a large party of overpowered monsters. Jack up your monsters the same way the players are, goggle for a moment at all the free CR it took to get there, and ignore those CR increases the same way you've ignored everything the party has.

Disjunction is just a tool. If your players are above WBL it is a tool that can potentially force them back down sooner rather than waiting for loot famine+level up to get them back in line. This is obviously a massive shift that some or all of your players will not like. But if you can't handle building encounters against all their stuff then they should recognize it's time to take a hit so the game can continue.

In order to match upgrades without a billion templates or inflating treasure even further, use bonded items (DMG2) for the classic loot disappears only works for the bad guys. Grafts are cool too, but hardly cover anything and are lootable with effort.

[Echch]

Without Disjunction, buff-stacks become the default state, and I think the arms race between removal methods and removal protection methods is more interesting than that.

However, with Disjunction, buffing becomes pointless, as it eats slots and gives virtually nothing in return. If the Disjunction itself would allow a save or there would be a dispel check, that would be something different, but as it stands, Disjunction is broken.

[icefractal]

However, with Disjunction, buffing becomes pointless, as it eats slots and gives virtually nothing in return. If the Disjunction itself would allow a save or there would be a dispel check, that would be something different, but as it stands, Disjunction is broken.As mentioned, there are some ways to protect against it; Contingency / Craft Contingent Spell and the Ring of Spell Battle, for example. And even if you didn't have that, I wouldn't call "makes you nigh-undefeatable against anything that can't cast Disjunction" pointless. :smallyuk:

To me, it's the same thing as how Wish can defeat any methods of dimensionally locking a space. Without those "unstoppable force" spells, it would be possible to make your self invincible and/or unreachable and just ignore any opposition. With them, it remains an arms race and there's always the possibility of change; a more interesting situation IMO.

That said, I quite possibly would omit Disjunction in a low-mid op game. If people aren't prepared for it, it's just a big hassle.

[JBPuffin]

Well that's your problem right there. If you want to run normal encounters you can't have characters running around with what sounds like free templates, no semblance of WBL, and possibly just made up stuff (will o' wisp invisibility?). In order to challenge a large party of overpowered characters, you need a large party of overpowered monsters. Jack up your monsters the same way the players are, goggle for a moment at all the free CR it took to get there, and ignore those CR increases the same way you've ignored everything the party has.

Disjunction is just a tool. If your players are above WBL it is a tool that can potentially force them back down sooner rather than waiting for loot famine+level up to get them back in line. This is obviously a massive shift that some or all of your players will not like. But if you can't handle building encounters against all their stuff then they should recognize it's time to take a hit so the game can continue.

In order to match upgrades without a billion templates or inflating treasure even further, use bonded items (DMG2) for the classic loot disappears only works for the bad guys. Grafts are cool too, but hardly cover anything and are lootable with effort.

Yeah, Original Poster, I'm not sure this is a high-op campaign. It sounds more like a lootfest campaign...

[DarkSoul]

After looking at the Pathfinder version of Disjunction I'd inform your players that you'll be using that version of the spell, and that you'll be using it against them.

Something to consider as far as encounters go is the section on nonassociated class levels on page 294 in the Monster Manual. As an example, a fire giant wizard 15 is CR 17, and the same monster with 17 wizard levels is only CR 19.

You're also up against very high ability scores, which is worth at least two effective levels for your characters. If they've got appropriate gear value for their level then they should probably be up against 19th level encounters (at least) anyway.

[ryu]

As mentioned, there are some ways to protect against it; Contingency / Craft Contingent Spell and the Ring of Spell Battle, for example. And even if you didn't have that, I wouldn't call "makes you nigh-undefeatable against anything that can't cast Disjunction" pointless. :smallyuk:

To me, it's the same thing as how Wish can defeat any methods of dimensionally locking a space. Without those "unstoppable force" spells, it would be possible to make your self invincible and/or unreachable and just ignore any opposition. With them, it remains an arms race and there's always the possibility of change; a more interesting situation IMO.

That said, I quite possibly would omit Disjunction in a low-mid op game. If people aren't prepared for it, it's just a big hassle.

Having buffs doesn't make you immune from defeat when disjunction doesn't exist. It makes you immune from defeat by people who aren't spellcasters, and people who are less methodical spellcasters than you. Big difference.

[icefractal]

Having buffs doesn't make you immune from defeat when disjunction doesn't exist. It makes you immune from defeat by people who aren't spellcasters, and people who are less methodical spellcasters than you. Big difference.Well, you can become immune to damage, immune to most conditions, but sure, it's plausible that any given character's preparations would leave some gap.

I'm just saying that at the point where needing a non-[Death] non-damage no-SR lethal effect to deal with someone is par for the course, people should be able to handle Disjunction as well. :smalltongue:

Although for that matter, I doubt the OP really wants to go deep into that territory. Again, unless you're willing to hand-craft every enemy the party faces, you'll hit a limit at some point. Me? I'm lazy - people are welcome to optimize as they like, but at the point that unmodified CR 20 foes become useless the campaign ends.

[Echch]

As mentioned, there are some ways to protect against it; Contingency / Craft Contingent Spell and the Ring of Spell Battle, for example. And even if you didn't have that, I wouldn't call "makes you nigh-undefeatable against anything that can't cast Disjunction" pointless. :smallyuk:

To me, it's the same thing as how Wish can defeat any methods of dimensionally locking a space. Without those "unstoppable force" spells, it would be possible to make your self invincible and/or unreachable and just ignore any opposition. With them, it remains an arms race and there's always the possibility of change; a more interesting situation IMO.

That said, I quite possibly would omit Disjunction in a low-mid op game. If people aren't prepared for it, it's just a big hassle.

Hmm... I mean, the methods you are telling me aren't very convincing (1/day? In high-op?).
Anyway, the reason I dislike Disjunction over Wish is that Wish only defeats travel-blocks. Disjunction kills everything. There is no denying that, in high-op, you can instantly regain all your buffs (except for Consumptive Field, Transcend Morality...), given that we don't do limited spells in high-op, but I ask you: Why would you prepare anything but Disjunction? The only thing it doesn't kill instantly is something Instantaneous, every other spell is doomed to fail.

And in high-op... It kinda is, because there is nothing at high levels that doesn't cast Disjunction if it's available, since Disjunction is obviously the best thing you can do in most situations. Summon Monster? Dispelled. Contigencies? Gone either way. Dominate? Disjoined. Illusions? Gone. The True Seeing that normally looks through buffs? Killed off along with all other possible buffs.

Disjunction would add nothing to the game in high-op save making most options obsolete, which doesn't make for an interesting game as far as I can see.

I have to agree though: In mid-op, where we actually have limited spells, it's so much worse.

[ProGun]

I just discussed Disjunction with the wizard in the group I'm DMing. I told him I'm considering using it down the road, but that if I did I'd be changing the spell so it auto-dispels all spells in the area and all non-artifact magical items are affected as though by a targeted dispel magic, possibly with a bonus on the dispel check. Any affected item shuts off for a period of time rather than becoming non-magical.

One reason why folks DON'T throw disjunctions around in my game is artifacts. The caster who casts one with an artifact in range risks instant karma blowback and even if the artifact makes their save the deity that created the artifact gets a heads up regarding the close call and the caster gets puts on their sh!tlist. Best to just avoid it all together.

[Psyren]

That is essentially what Pathfinder does with their Disjunction; the magic items are only dispelled for 1 minute/caster level instead of being destroyed on a failed saving throw, unless they fail their saving throw with a Natural 1, in which case the item is permanently destroyed. I usually bring this into my 3.5 Games to make Disjunction usable in normal play without the threat of permanently destroying everyone's magic items. It helps to take down buffs and temporarily negate christmas tree effects without absolutely upending WBL.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/spells/mageSDisjunction.html

This. Just use the Pathfinder version.


However, with Disjunction, buffing becomes pointless, as it eats slots and gives virtually nothing in return. If the Disjunction itself would allow a save or there would be a dispel check, that would be something different, but as it stands, Disjunction is broken.

The PF version does this too (i.e. items get a save, which of course use the wearer's save if that's batter.) Buffs do not, so you actually end up hosing casters more than mundanes (whose buffs tend to come more from their gear.) It's win-win.

I disagree however that buffing is pointless - after all, not all high-level threats are even capable of disjunction. The Tarrasque can't use it, nor can most great wyrm dragons, for instance.

[ryu]

This. Just use the Pathfinder version.



The PF version does this too (i.e. items get a save, which of course use the wearer's save if that's batter.) Buffs do not, so you actually end up hosing casters more than mundanes (whose buffs tend to come more from their gear.) It's win-win.

I disagree however that buffing is pointless - after all, not all high-level threats are even capable of disjunction. The Tarrasque can't use it, nor can most great wyrm dragons, for instance.

I would like to take a moment to point out that Tarry isn't a high level thread. He's supposed to be, but he's just not.

[sleepyphoenixx]

The argument of "we (the players) don't use Disjunction so you can't either" is based on the fallacy that the DM doesn't want them to.
Which is obviously false, because the only reason they don't is that they're greedy little bastards who don't want to take the chance that they'll destroy some of their loot.

The only ones that Disjunction really screws are the casters with massive stacks of persisted buffs. Who steamroll everything else that isn't another caster with a massive stack of persisted buffs unless the DM employs countermeasures.

It's a different matter with new and low-op players who stand a serious chance of losing everything, but if you're talking high-op your players shouldn't have any problems with their items making their saves 95% of the time.
5% chance of losing an item is acceptable if you're too lazy to get rerolls imo.
And that's not counting that there certainly are countermeasures for Disjunction. If they get to 9th level spells and don't take them it's their own fault.

I've found that adding Disjunction to my arsenal - in addition to making dispelling a priority for any encounter capable of it - as a DM has led to players generally running around with less buffs (especially the stacks of persisted buffs) and relying more on quickening and magic items (which are limited by WBL) to supply needed buffs in-combat instead of piling on everything they can.
That naturally takes quite a bit of steam out of Incantatrix and DMM:Persist builds but that's hardly a bad thing.

It certainly leads to less stat bloat and less need for me to completely overhaul every monster i want to use.

Extensive pre-buffing is only useful against dumb monsters and groups without spellcasters in my games (which don't really exist at mid-high levels, naturally).
Any humanoid encounter at mid-high levels will include spellcasters, with some of them even being specialized dispellers and counterspellers on occassion.

[Telok]

The spelling is going to be wrong because I have a cold and this mobile doesn't do spell check.

Reciprical Gyre.

Punch that through antimagic or SR and laugh at buff stacks. It's an alternative to disjunction if someone can't deal with losing an imaginary magic toy.

[Beneath]

One caveat though - I've found that in practice, this is a pain in the ass unless you have a lot of free time for game prep.

For one thing, for most characters, optimizing the build isn't enough, you need to have the tactics down too to get full effect from it.

For another, you have to optimize foes differently than you'd optimize PCs. Glass cannons don't make for very fun opposition, when the most likely result is "kill one PC and then get stomped". And defensively, being out of LoS/LoE is often the most practical method, but it's one that will drag fights out and annoy most players.

So I'm not ruling it out, but "fight optimization with optimization" is not a sure-fire strategy.

Optimizing back is a terrible idea, seconded. Optimization is about making the best use of limited resources. As a player, you have a limited amount of items, levels, etc. As a GM, you can just write things into or out of your world, giving you unlimited power. If you want your NPC to have powers your players don't, just write them in; if you want the PCs to be unable to take their items, just write in a reason why. It saves you a lot of prep time and it gives you room to put in elements to your world that aren't already there.

Drow equipment melting in sunlight, for instance, wasn't invented by a DM who optimized back; it was invented by a DM who wanted to give his NPCs stuff the PCs couldn't use the first time and would have to be clever with the second time.

Also, like has been said, this sounds less high-optimization and more like they just have more resources than stated.

If you gave your word that you wouldn't destroy their items with disjunction, then don't use it, though

[sleepyphoenixx]

Optimizing back is a terrible idea, seconded. Optimization is about making the best use of limited resources. As a player, you have a limited amount of items, levels, etc. As a GM, you can just write things into or out of your world, giving you unlimited power. If you want your NPC to have powers your players don't, just write them in; if you want the PCs to be unable to take their items, just write in a reason why. It saves you a lot of prep time and it gives you room to put in elements to your world that aren't already there.

It's not about your NPC having powers the players don't. It's about them using what they have access to in a manner that's appropriate for their intelligence.
The stock enemies generally have terrible feat and spell selections. You can do a lot to challenge a more optimized party just by changing that up, and you definitely should.
Otherwise your only option to challenge your players is to hit them with a higher CR enemy. And that either doesn't do much or turns the fights even more into rocket tag.

It also ties into worldbuilding. If your world is high-magic (as standard for D&D) then any group or organization that's regarded as a threat will have access to spellcasters at anything but the lowest levels, and people will take precautions against enemy spellcasters because they're dangerous and everyone knows it.

Using DM fiat to stop the players from stomping your encounters is just frustrating, for both sides. Especially if you have to do it every single time.
It also breaks SoD if all your NPCs are super-special snowflakes with abilities and items that your PCs have no way of getting themselves. I reserve that kind of thing for plot-level artifacts.
Getting their enemies stuff when they defeat them is a major source of motivation at least for my players, and i doubt they're the only ones.

Edit: A lot also depends on your personal preferences and how much free time you have. Personally i enjoy building encounters for my players and i generally have enough time to do it for our twice-a-month sessions.
But it's pretty much a fact that D&D doesn't expect high optimization. It expects blaster wizards, healing clerics and fighters with weapon focus. And the pre-built challenges reflect that.
If you either don't have the time or really don't like doing it (maybe because you're the "designated DM" because nobody else would do it or whatever) you're better off limiting your players level of optimization to keep your work down.
Because there really isn't a quick and dirty way to keep up with optimizing PCs as a DM. You either put in the work or you make your players keep it down so you don't have to.

[lynxd80]

I really appreciate all the input you guys put in! I'm debating allowing the use of the Pathfinder version (to be accessible to the players and the NPCs). I'm also considering just stacking the crap out of their enemies XD LOL! Whatever you choose, you'll have been very insightful I very much appreciate your opinions and thoughts! Thank you all so much.

[Crake]

My personal favourite counter to disjunction is a contingent prismatic sphere set to go off when a disjunction is being cast within range. The disjunction will go off, be blocked by the prismatic sphere, and disjoin the sphere as well, resulting in 0 loss for you (barring the materials needed for the contingent spell) and waste the enemy's action and spell slot.

[Chulehdoido]

Prismatic Sphere cant block Disjunction.

[Eldariel]

My personal go-to counter to Disjunction is Antimagic Field for mid op levels. Which is kinda ironic since Disjunction is basically the only thing that can destroy Antimagic Field. But AMF protecting your buffs is one of the best ways to go about it and doesn't cost actions/discharged spells unlike most counters. Of course, it's possible for the caster to just jack their CL up to 100 and ensure it gets destroyed but at least that'll be impressive and you guarantee any trap artifacts you might be carrying will detonate. If I expect Consumptive Field-levels of CL stacking, I'll probably mostly default back to active defenses. And yeah, Disjunction is just about the best offense a high level caster can deploy but Gate, high level Summons and such can compete thanks to action economy (unless you're playing a game where you allow action loops in which case things get even more silly). Indeed, I'd say it's the most important 9th level spell in the sense that it enables more-or-less immortals to die. It's basically the only non-Epic way to actually punch through an AMF-protected AMF-proofed buffstack making you immune to everything.

[sleepyphoenixx]

My personal go-to counter to Disjunction is Antimagic Field for mid op levels.
Since you're claiming mid-op i'm going to assume that you're not using Initiate of Mystra or Selective AMF shenanigans. So how do you use it without crippling yourself?
High level combat without buffs and/or magic items is kind of a non-starter most of the time.

Personally i just rely on a Ring of Spell-Battle or Ring of Greater Counterspells or free/immediate action counterspelling with Battlemagic Perception/Duelward/Divine Defiance. They're pretty much made for that kind of thing.
Most spellcasters will pick up a Ring of Spell-Battle long before Disjunction becomes an issue anyway since it's just a good piece of gear.
And Battlemagic Perception fits neatly into a Spell Matrix that you can trigger at the start of combat - no need for persistomancy, so it's open pretty much to every wizard.

There's also the option of using a wand of Wings of Cover. They're cheap enough, UMD is useful for everyone and DC 20 isn't hard to reach. And again they're useful for a wide variety of situations, so everyone should get one.
Since Disjunction is a burst and not a spread it'll be blocked by the total cover, and since its duration is instantaneous it can't be disjoined.

Then there's the option if immediate action teleports, Celerity + Wall of Stone (or other instantaneous spell) or any other option that either removes you from the area or blocks LoE.

Core-only you're pretty much screwed though if you're facing surprise disjunction though.
Your only options are to either ready an action to counterspell the normal way, ready an action to interrupt with damage and hope you hit or keep out of range (it's close-ranged)/LoE.

[ericgrau]

It's never as bad as people say. It just takes away their toys which makes players cringe and rant. They'll get new toys in only a handful of fights as WBL skyrockets. It's not a big deal. When players are changing the world in a handful of rounds and are constantly at risk of having their soul trapped, it's par for the course. And that's just competent high level play; with high optimization it gets a lot crazier. Sure go for it, use disjunction.

As said make sure your players no it is no longer banned well in advance, to be fair. Give them enough time to prepare.

You mentioned 1 or multiple of them have an artifact. That could screw over the disjunction caster for life and make him think twice about casting it against any well equipped group without some recon first. What he's risking is way more than what the party is risking. A high int wizard is more likely to take the spell and any caster high int or not has a lifetime of advancement to risk losing. So this whole thing might be moot as all the players' enemies may be too scared to use it. If anything it may become a tool for the players, and even then with extreme caution. Do warn them about the potential for artifacts among enemies, even though enemies are much less likely to have them.

[ryu]

It's never as bad as people say. It just takes away their toys which makes players cringe and rant. They'll get new toys in only a handful of fights as WBL skyrockets. It's not a big deal. When players are changing the world in a handful of rounds and are constantly at risk of having their soul trapped, it's par for the course. And that's just competent high level play; with high optimization it gets a lot crazier. Sure go for it, use disjunction.

As said make sure your players no it is no longer banned well in advance, to be fair. Give them enough time to prepare.

You mentioned 1 or multiple of them have an artifact. That could screw over the disjunction caster for life and make him think twice about casting it against any well equipped group without some recon first. What he's risking is way more than what the party is risking. A high int wizard is more likely to take the spell and any caster high int or not has a lifetime of advancement to risk losing. So this whole thing might be moot as all the players' enemies may be too scared to use it. If anything it may become a tool for the players, and even then with extreme caution. Do warn them about the potential for artifacts among enemies, even though enemies are much less likely to have them.

Except ''toys'' are a core assumption of the system. WBL is one of the few things everyone is assumed to have equally at a given level. Some may use it more efficiently, but everyone has it.

[ericgrau]

Except ''toys'' are a core assumption of the system. WBL is one of the few things everyone is assumed to have equally at a given level. Some may use it more efficiently, but everyone has it.

Like I said they'll get it back fast. I was mainly explaining why players complain so much. I gave many other reasons after that on why there's not much to complain about. As in there are a billion worse challenges at high level, especially at high level high op.

And soon the higher level WBL makes the lower level WBL look like nothing. And countermeasures, stashing some stuff, spare expendables, etc., etc.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Except ''toys'' are a core assumption of the system. WBL is one of the few things everyone is assumed to have equally at a given level. Some may use it more efficiently, but everyone has it.

And everyone has saving throws. So it's very unlikely that you'll lose all your gear.
It's even unlikely you'll lose most of it, because if your will save was that bad you'd already be dead/dominated/soul-trapped or whatever other nasty thing high level casters can do to you.

WBL isn't "players must have gear worth exactly this much to be competitive". It's a vague guideline.
Losing 1 or 2 items isn't going to cripple you in most cases, and you can protect your most important ones with save-rerolls if you're that dependant on them.
The rest you can make up for by selling that high level enemies possessions you loot from his body when he's dead because he didn't put up any BFC or debuffs on your party (or disjoined them).

Players are generally just greedy little buggers.
They don't like even the remote chance of losing "their" items - no matter that they're most likely robbed from a still-warm corpse or at least bought with stolen money.

Try it out sometime. Most groups don't blink an eye at people trying to murder them, but have a thief steal some of their stuff and they'll go absolutely crazy getting revenge and recovering it. :smalltongue:

[ryu]

Like I said they'll get it back fast. I was mainly explaining why players complain so much. I gave many other reasons after that on why there's not much to complain about. As in there are a billion worse challenges at high level, especially at high level high op.

And soon the higher level WBL makes the lower level WBL look like nothing. And countermeasures, stashing some stuff, spare expendables, etc., etc.

Oh they'll get it back all right. The immediate response to disjunction destroying an item is XP free wishing it back into existence. The only reason this isn't immediately done to win the game is that WBL is respected. If it is no longer respected, it will be forcibly reinstated.

Similarly death is a much easier problem to fix at these levels than losing a worthwhile item.

[Eldariel]

Since you're claiming mid-op i'm going to assume that you're not using Initiate of Mystra or Selective AMF shenanigans. So how do you use it without crippling yourself?
High level combat without buffs and/or magic items is kind of a non-starter most of the time.

Well, I was intending the "mid" to be for games where stuff like Disjunction and defensive AMFs are a thing; thus by definition high, but not as high as to render most of it moot. I guess I should rephrase that as "high mid-high optimization level"; so short of where we are looping actions or recovering spells but that the point where basically all finite power increases are on the table.

[icefractal]

Oh they'll get it back all right. The immediate response to disjunction destroying an item is XP free wishing it back into existence. The only reason this isn't immediately done to win the game is that WBL is respected. If it is no longer respected, it will be forcibly reinstated.Sigh. Or the reason is that xp-free Wish turns the game into Calvinball, and so many groups prohibit it.

Why do I say Calvinball? Because it creates a situation that cannot be adjudicated in a non-arbitrary way, much less by the game's rules. With a single xp-free Wish, it's trivial to create a arbitrarily large army of arbitrarily strong minions, each of which has a large number of contingencies active. All within ... three rounds, I think? Possibly faster. When two armies like that collide (because seriously, when that kind of power is on the table the only foes who matter are the kind that also have it), you're not even going to be able to finish rolling initiative, what with the arbitrarily large number of contingent effects going off on both sides.

"Oh, but I only use those wishes in a limited way, and so it's still completely functional." And where do those limits come from? Not from any rules. They're just fiat on your part. "I'll only use it to restore WBL ... I'll only use it to 'fix' battles that I think are unfair ... I'll only use it when my victory is annoyingly incomplete ..." If the group has such an agreement, then why not just have a house-rule (Disjunction doesn't destroy items) and skip the convoluted middle man?

TL;DR - The two things are not equivalent. XP-Free Wishes are either a strange way of houseruling, or a thought experiment that takes the game to effectively a different system. Meanwhile, Disjunction is a normal tool in mid-op+ gameplay, and anyone who can't handle it should probably hang up their optimizer hat. :smallwink:

[ryu]

Sigh. Or the reason is that xp-free Wish turns the game into Calvinball, and so many groups prohibit it.

Why do I say Calvinball? Because it creates a situation that cannot be adjudicated in a non-arbitrary way, much less by the game's rules. With a single xp-free Wish, it's trivial to create a arbitrarily large army of arbitrarily strong minions, each of which has a large number of contingencies active. All within ... three rounds, I think? Possibly faster. When two armies like that collide (because seriously, when that kind of power is on the table the only foes who matter are the kind that also have it), you're not even going to be able to finish rolling initiative, what with the arbitrarily large number of contingent effects going off on both sides.

"Oh, but I only use those wishes in a limited way, and so it's still completely functional." And where do those limits come from? Not from any rules. They're just fiat on your part. "I'll only use it to restore WBL ... I'll only use it to 'fix' battles that I think are unfair ... I'll only use it when my victory is annoyingly incomplete ..." If the group has such an agreement, then why not just have a house-rule (Disjunction doesn't destroy items) and skip the convoluted middle man?

TL;DR - The two things are not equivalent. XP-Free Wishes are either a strange way of houseruling, or a thought experiment that takes the game to effectively a different system. Meanwhile, Disjunction is a normal tool in mid-op+ gameplay, and anyone who can't handle it should probably hang up their optimizer hat. :smallwink:

Oh it's still the same system. Tippy even endorses precisely that counter. Similarly WBL is not a guideline. It's a rule. Some just enforce it more extremely. In Tippy's games he has stated that if you go above WBL you immediately die. Hard and fast rule of the universe.

[icefractal]

So what you're saying is that he added a house-rule (WBL is a hard constant) ... just like I recommended to do?
If the group has such an agreement, then why not just have a house-rule (Disjunction doesn't destroy items) and skip the convoluted middle man?

The flavor for the house-rule might be that you use cost-free Wishes to instantly replace the items, but in actual effect that's no different than if the flavor was that divine item-pixies appear with replacement gear.

Or am I wrong, does he allow the other uses of cost-free Wishes, such as the whole "arbitrarily large, arbitrarily powerful army of minions" thing? If he does, I would love to learn the resolution system he uses - I haven't come up with a good way to resolve NI contingencies going off at once on both sides.

[ryu]

So what you're saying is that he added a house-rule (WBL is a hard constant) ... just like I recommended to do?

The flavor for the house-rule might be that you use cost-free Wishes to instantly replace the items, but in actual effect that's no different than if the flavor was that divine item-pixies appear with replacement gear.

Or am I wrong, does he allow the other uses of cost-free Wishes, such as the whole "arbitrarily large, arbitrarily powerful army of minions" thing? If he does, I would love to learn the resolution system he uses - I haven't come up with a good way to resolve NI contingencies going off at once on both sides.

It aint a house rule to use systems that exist within their entirety within the game itself. XP free wish is a thing that exists in the rules that you either houserule AWAY or don't use if you want a particularly low power game.

[icefractal]

It aint a house rule to use systems that exist within their entirety within the game itself. XP free wish is a thing that exists in the rules that you either houserule AWAY or don't use if you want a particularly low power game.Well, yes, you do have to house-rule it away. If you want to play a game that has any possibility of being resolved by the rules system, anyway. If you're saying you can only partly house-rule it away, like saying it can be used for certain purposes like emulating non-accumulating spells or gaining items up to WBL, then that's true. Removing it entirely is an equally valid house-rule though.

However, the house-rule I was referring to was that you instantly die if you exceed WBL.

[ryu]

Well, yes, you do have to house-rule it away. If you want to play a game that has any possibility of being resolved by the rules system, anyway. If you're saying you can only partly house-rule it away, like saying it can be used for certain purposes like emulating non-accumulating spells or gaining items up to WBL, then that's true. Removing it entirely is an equally valid house-rule though.

However, the house-rule I was referring to was that you instantly die if you exceed WBL.

Actually that's not a rules tweak at our table though I can't speak to Tippy's specific method of enforcement. It's down to the fact that pun-pun already exists, and is watching. This is also why no one tries to become a pun-pun. It doesn't end well.

[Arbane]

Except ''toys'' are a core assumption of the system. WBL is one of the few things everyone is assumed to have equally at a given level. Some may use it more efficiently, but everyone has it.

Another problem is the 15 minutes it will take to recalculate all the PC's ability scores & such when all their stat-boosting items go pop.

[Telok]

Another problem is the 15 minutes it will take to recalculate all the PC's ability scores & such when all their stat-boosting items go pop.

If it's taking fifteen minutes to subtract the number 3 from some rolls you may want to play a game with less math.

[Echch]

If it's taking fifteen minutes to subtract the number 3 from some rolls you may want to play a game with less math.

....Or the number 70 in case you had a consumptive field active :smallfrown:

[Quertus]

If disjunction did anything, you aren't playing in a highly optimized game.

If you have a gentleman's agreement not to use it, and you use it, you're a ****.

A custom magic suppression field spell, otoh, is neither completely ****ish nor ineffectual.

Is there a thread for high-op encounters? If not, someone should make one, so that people in high-op games can simply pull encounters "straight from the (virtual) book".