Mordenkainen's Disjunction vs Artifact.

[Yogibear41]

A wizard or cleric uses Mordenkainen's disjunction and successfully affected an Artifact, but lost all spellcasting ability as the result of a failed save.

Can that character still use wands and scrolls of his previous class's spells or would he need to perform a UMD check?

[Caudex Capite]

I'm not aware of any source that specifically addresses this source, but I'd lean towards saying that they can still use Spell Trigger items (like Wands), but not Spell Completion items (like Scrolls). Looking at the Magic Item Basics (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#spellCompletion) rules, the description for spell completion items says the caster must "perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting", which sounds like it requires casting ability they've lost. On the other hand, Spell Trigger items specifically say that even characters who can't cast spells but have levels in an appropriate class can use them (their example is a level 3 Paladin), and that they only require special knowledge.

That said, I could see an argument for Scrolls also being usable, because in the Scroll-specific rules, there are three requirements given, none of which involve casting ability; the correct type of scroll, the spell on their class list, and the appropriate ability score. Of course, if they don't have a high enough caster level, they need to make a CL check, and one might say that a Wizard who lost their magic to Disjoining an Artifact would have a CL of 0, but that isn't explicitly stated as a consequence.

[Jack_Simth]

A wizard or cleric uses Mordenkainen's disjunction and successfully affected an Artifact, but lost all spellcasting ability as the result of a failed save.

Can that character still use wands and scrolls of his previous class's spells or would he need to perform a UMD check?

I don't think it's specifically addressed anywhere, but...

Given that the character is likely to be retired very quickly if there's not a deity who owes a favor, I'd let the wizard use items.

[martixy]

Depends on how you define losing spellcasting (different interpretations might fit for different games).

In RAW there's good arguments for both sides in different places (as outlined by Caudex Capite). Disambiguating would likely require DM input.

Do you lose your spell slots? Do you suffer a precipitous penalty to caster level? Do you outright not count as a caster anymore?
With the first two, scrolls likely remain usable, with the latter one you might lose access to scrolls. Wands stay an option either way.

[Mr Adventurer]

It's the spellcasting ability itself that gets removed, it seems like; so, you don't have a table of spells per day, you don't have a reference to a class spell list, you don't have a mechanism to learn new spells, etc.

[Hackulator]

Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.)

You are still a wizard, your class still has a spell list even though you can no longer cast, you can use wands.


To use a spell completion item safely, a character must be of high enough level in the right class to cast the spell already

If you are a high enough level Wizard that you should be able to cast the spell, you can still use a Wizard scroll. You are still a Wizard.