Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Disjunction Dispute
116 views
Skip to first unread message
Harold Groot
May 7, 2013, 4:29:15 PM5/7/13
to
Our Dm fired a warning shot across the bows last night. Our own
spellcasters can cast 7th (and in some cases 8th) level spells and we
rely on buffing spells a lot. On a GREATER TELEPORT (but NOT part of a
Scry/Buff/Teleport sequence - we have a Gentleman's Agreement not to
use those in either direction) we arrived at our destination "and you
hear the last few words of a MORDENKAINEN'S DISJUNCTION..."
After giving us some time to ponder the probable consequences, we
learned that is was a lower-level caster using a scroll - which
fizzled. The caster (part of a group trying to desecrate a Temple of
Wee Jas by getting rid of a Permanent WALL OF FIRE cast by a VERY high
level caster - and probably not yet aware of us) told his allies "It's
OK, I have another scroll" and was reaching for a scroll tube....
and the game ended for the night on that note.
This is the first time we have faced this spell with this DM. During
the discussion after the game it became clear that the players and DM
were not in agreement as to some aspects of the spell. (And before you
go jumping on the DM in my game, let me say that the DM's
interpretation would be more in the favor of the PCs than the
interpretation of some of the players.)
The main question revolves around what a "permanent magic item" is. Is
there something that pins this down? Some players are used to having
potions, scrolls and wands be automatically destroyed because they
aren't "permanent items", they just "store" a set number of spells.
Others (including the DM) think that they qualify as "permanent" items
(just like, say, a Ring Of Protection would) and thus get the Will
Save to avoid destruction.
I tend to think that this dispute contains a bit of legacy wording
from earlier editions, since in 1E you would use a PERMANENCY spell to
finish crafting most magic items - but you would NOT use that spell on
potions, scrolls or wands. So players from that era (most of us) may
think of potions, scrolls and wands as being "temporary storage
devices" rather than "permanent items". HOWEVER, in AD&D the wording
of MORDENKAINEN'S DISJUNCTION specifically mentioned that potions and
scrolls DID get a saving throw (along with a list of other things,
though curiously enough Wands were not mentioned).
In the 3.5 MORDENKAINEN's DISJUNCTION (PH) or MAGE'S DISJUNCTION (SRD)
they don't give that list. Just
=============================================================================
Mage�s Disjunction
Abjuration
Level: Magic 9, Sor/Wiz 9
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Area: All magical effects and magic items within a 40-ft.-radius burst
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will negates (object)
Spell Resistance: No
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.
You also have a 1% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic
field. If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items
within it are disjoined.
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. (These abilities
cannot be recovered by mortal magic, not even miracle or wish.)
Note: Destroying artifacts is a dangerous business, and it is 95%
likely to attract the attention of some powerful being who has an
interest in or connection with the device.
=========================================================================
This seems to imply that it is separating out up-and-running "spells
and spell-like effects" as one category, with everything else falling
into "permanent magic items". So scrolls, potions, wand and so on
would get the saving throw. This seems to be the DM's position, and I
expect that the players that currently think otherwise will not be
difficult to persuade - but if there is someplace that actually makes
this clearer, it would be nice to know about it. Of course, my PC has
to pre-memorize spells and so could be considered a "temporary storage
device" (just like a potion, scroll or wand) if you wanted to look at
her that way - and there is no hint that memorized spells are subject
to DISJUNCTION....
Now, there's also a secondary matter. This involves Supernatural
effects. The spell description starts out by mentioning "All magical
effects" in the first line, and SU effects are magical (they are
suppressed, for example, in an ANTI-MAGIC FIELD). But then right after
that sentence there is the sentence "That is, spells and spell-like
effects are separated into their individual components (ending the
effect as a DISPEL MAGIC spell does)...." That sentence seems to take
precedence over the first one and it doesn't mention Su abilities at
all (and that makes sense, since SU abilities are not subject to
DISPEL effects). So it seems to me that SU effects are not subject to
the DISJUNCTION - but some of the others just go back to that first
sentence about "All magical effects...." So again, is there anything
that makes this any clearer?
spellcasters can cast 7th (and in some cases 8th) level spells and we
rely on buffing spells a lot. On a GREATER TELEPORT (but NOT part of a
Scry/Buff/Teleport sequence - we have a Gentleman's Agreement not to
use those in either direction) we arrived at our destination "and you
hear the last few words of a MORDENKAINEN'S DISJUNCTION..."
After giving us some time to ponder the probable consequences, we
learned that is was a lower-level caster using a scroll - which
fizzled. The caster (part of a group trying to desecrate a Temple of
Wee Jas by getting rid of a Permanent WALL OF FIRE cast by a VERY high
level caster - and probably not yet aware of us) told his allies "It's
OK, I have another scroll" and was reaching for a scroll tube....
and the game ended for the night on that note.
This is the first time we have faced this spell with this DM. During
the discussion after the game it became clear that the players and DM
were not in agreement as to some aspects of the spell. (And before you
go jumping on the DM in my game, let me say that the DM's
interpretation would be more in the favor of the PCs than the
interpretation of some of the players.)
The main question revolves around what a "permanent magic item" is. Is
there something that pins this down? Some players are used to having
potions, scrolls and wands be automatically destroyed because they
aren't "permanent items", they just "store" a set number of spells.
Others (including the DM) think that they qualify as "permanent" items
(just like, say, a Ring Of Protection would) and thus get the Will
Save to avoid destruction.
I tend to think that this dispute contains a bit of legacy wording
from earlier editions, since in 1E you would use a PERMANENCY spell to
finish crafting most magic items - but you would NOT use that spell on
potions, scrolls or wands. So players from that era (most of us) may
think of potions, scrolls and wands as being "temporary storage
devices" rather than "permanent items". HOWEVER, in AD&D the wording
of MORDENKAINEN'S DISJUNCTION specifically mentioned that potions and
scrolls DID get a saving throw (along with a list of other things,
though curiously enough Wands were not mentioned).
In the 3.5 MORDENKAINEN's DISJUNCTION (PH) or MAGE'S DISJUNCTION (SRD)
they don't give that list. Just
=============================================================================
Mage�s Disjunction
Abjuration
Level: Magic 9, Sor/Wiz 9
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Area: All magical effects and magic items within a 40-ft.-radius burst
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will negates (object)
Spell Resistance: No
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.
You also have a 1% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic
field. If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items
within it are disjoined.
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. (These abilities
cannot be recovered by mortal magic, not even miracle or wish.)
Note: Destroying artifacts is a dangerous business, and it is 95%
likely to attract the attention of some powerful being who has an
interest in or connection with the device.
=========================================================================
This seems to imply that it is separating out up-and-running "spells
and spell-like effects" as one category, with everything else falling
into "permanent magic items". So scrolls, potions, wand and so on
would get the saving throw. This seems to be the DM's position, and I
expect that the players that currently think otherwise will not be
difficult to persuade - but if there is someplace that actually makes
this clearer, it would be nice to know about it. Of course, my PC has
to pre-memorize spells and so could be considered a "temporary storage
device" (just like a potion, scroll or wand) if you wanted to look at
her that way - and there is no hint that memorized spells are subject
to DISJUNCTION....
Now, there's also a secondary matter. This involves Supernatural
effects. The spell description starts out by mentioning "All magical
effects" in the first line, and SU effects are magical (they are
suppressed, for example, in an ANTI-MAGIC FIELD). But then right after
that sentence there is the sentence "That is, spells and spell-like
effects are separated into their individual components (ending the
effect as a DISPEL MAGIC spell does)...." That sentence seems to take
precedence over the first one and it doesn't mention Su abilities at
all (and that makes sense, since SU abilities are not subject to
DISPEL effects). So it seems to me that SU effects are not subject to
the DISJUNCTION - but some of the others just go back to that first
sentence about "All magical effects...." So again, is there anything
that makes this any clearer?
WDS906 (less the 906)
May 7, 2013, 5:56:24 PM5/7/13
to
On 5/7/2013 3:29 PM, Harold Groot wrote:
> Mage�s Disjunction
Ahhh, the "totally screw the non-caster PCs" spell. Why?
Saving Throw: Will negates (object)
We had a DM who threw one of those against us and one of our fighters
lost EVERY SINGLE magic item he had. The other fighter lost all but one
trivial thing. The rogue lost most of what he had. Meanwhile the two
main casters lost only a few trivial things. It caused a lot of
dissension in the group.
> Mage�s Disjunction
Ahhh, the "totally screw the non-caster PCs" spell. Why?
Saving Throw: Will negates (object)
lost EVERY SINGLE magic item he had. The other fighter lost all but one
trivial thing. The rogue lost most of what he had. Meanwhile the two
main casters lost only a few trivial things. It caused a lot of
dissension in the group.
Tetsubo
May 7, 2013, 6:38:00 PM5/7/13
to
anti-magic field? OK, that lasts until they move out of it. But take
away all their toys? That is a dickish move.
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Justisaur
May 7, 2013, 6:51:15 PM5/7/13
to
On May 7, 1:29 pm, ques...@infionline.net (Harold Groot) wrote:
> "and you
> hear the last few words of a MORDENKAINEN'S DISJUNCTION..."
>
> "and you
> hear the last few words of a MORDENKAINEN'S DISJUNCTION..."
>
> The main question revolves around what a "permanent magic item" is. Is
> there something that pins this down?
> there something that pins this down?
> Now, there's also a secondary matter. This involves Supernatural
> effects.
I think any of those interpretations is fine. I generally try to rule
> effects.
as favorable to the PCs on those 'screw the PCs' spells and rules, so
I would go with scrolls etc exempt as your dm, and only have it auto
dispel non-permanent spells.
- Justisaur
Harold Groot
May 7, 2013, 11:24:58 PM5/7/13
to
On Tue, 07 May 2013 16:56:24 -0500, "WDS906 (less the 906)"
<Bil...@seurer.net> wrote:
>On 5/7/2013 3:29 PM, Harold Groot wrote:
>> Mage’s Disjunction
<Bil...@seurer.net> wrote:
>On 5/7/2013 3:29 PM, Harold Groot wrote:
>
>Ahhh, the "totally screw the non-caster PCs" spell. Why?
>
>Saving Throw: Will negates (object)
>
>We had a DM who threw one of those against us and one of our fighters
>lost EVERY SINGLE magic item he had. The other fighter lost all but one
>trivial thing. The rogue lost most of what he had. Meanwhile the two
>main casters lost only a few trivial things. It caused a lot of
>dissension in the group.
First reason (IMHO) - the DM wants us to FEEL that the game has risks.
>Ahhh, the "totally screw the non-caster PCs" spell. Why?
>
>Saving Throw: Will negates (object)
>
>We had a DM who threw one of those against us and one of our fighters
>lost EVERY SINGLE magic item he had. The other fighter lost all but one
>trivial thing. The rogue lost most of what he had. Meanwhile the two
>main casters lost only a few trivial things. It caused a lot of
>dissension in the group.
That "warning shot" doesn't mean that he expects to actually get the
second MD attempt to be made - with us rolling initiative individually
and him rolling a single initiative for the monsters, it is HIGHLY
likely that at least one person on our side will act first, and quite
likely several will act before the scroll-reader. So there are
expected to be opportunities to prevent him from ever getting that
second MD off. And I don't really expect that this will be something
that comes up very often - but the DM doesn't want us to get smug and
think that it will NEVER come into play.
Second reason - in our campaign, it's not going to have the same
results as you gave. As I said, my PC believes in buffing the party
heavily. Since spells from scrolls are cast at minimums (unless stated
otherwise), the Will Save should be DC 23. The worst Will Save by
class levels in the party is 4, and there may be a small stat bonus
(let's say +1). Then add SUPERIOR RESISTANCE (+6) and CONVICTION, MASS
(+5, being cast at an elevated level via a Bead Of Karma) and
RECITATION (+3 for worshippers of my PC's god, which he is) the
non-spellcaster is going in at +14 on his Will Save. So with a DC of
23 and a bonus of +19, he's only going to miss the saves on a 3, 2 or
1. Yes, that will be 3 times as many as the "miss only on a 1"
spellcasters, but he'll still get to keep 6/7 of his items. And when
he levels he gets another +1 to his Will Save, so he would miss in
this situation on a 1 or a 2.
Of course, the next time the spell might be directly cast by a
spellcaster rather than read off a scroll, so the DC might be a bit
higher from having a 20+ stat. But then again, there may be other
things working that give that PC a boost beyond the factors I
mentioned. If you have a device or ability that lets you reroll one
save per day, that can be quite a help to (probably) save the most
important item that failed. Say he has 28 magic items and misses 4
Will Saves, but gets a 2nd chance on one and saves the best of the 4
where he missed. Probably he's not hurting too badly.
In addition, in our campaign there is a very heavy emphasis between
the players on giving magic items to those who can use them the most.
When our last non-caster entered the game (VERY powerful in
dish-it-out melee but pretty weak on other stuff) my PC loaned him a
magic item worth 18k (Ring of Spell Storing, Minor, with FLY on it)
and outright gave him about 30k worth of utility magic items (If
memory serves, it was Acrobat Boots of Big Stepping, Armbands of
Elusive Action, Vanishing Cloak, Ring of the Darkhidden, Heward's
Handy Haversack, and +1 Chain). Why? Because it would make the party
as a whole stronger if HE had those items rather than my PC. Mobility
has been extremely useful with this DM. His new mobility and
elusiveness made him a much more effective person in this group.
(Previous people coming in had gotten smaller donations from my PC,
but the principle had already been established.) And of course he
started getting a mess of daily buffing spells on top of that. So
anyway - even IF we had a case where a non-spellcaster lost a whole
LOT of magic to a MD spell, there would be a similar shifting around
of items after the battle so the PC was still in the same league as
the others in terms of magic. Communism ("To each according to his
need, from each according to his ability.") may have fared pretty
poorly in The Real World, but it can work very well for a small bunch
of PCs. So the problem with dissension that you had would not be
expected in this group.
Ubiquitous
May 8, 2013, 12:02:09 AM5/8/13
to
que...@infionline.net wrote:
>Our Dm fired a warning shot across the bows last night. Our own
>spellcasters can cast 7th (and in some cases 8th) level spells and we
>rely on buffing spells a lot. On a GREATER TELEPORT (but NOT part of a
>Scry/Buff/Teleport sequence - we have a Gentleman's Agreement not to
>use those in either direction) we arrived at our destination "and you
>hear the last few words of a MORDENKAINEN'S DISJUNCTION..."
>
>After giving us some time to ponder the probable consequences, we
>learned that is was a lower-level caster using a scroll - which
>fizzled. The caster (part of a group trying to desecrate a Temple of
>Wee Jas by getting rid of a Permanent WALL OF FIRE cast by a VERY high
>level caster - and probably not yet aware of us) told his allies "It's
>OK, I have another scroll" and was reaching for a scroll tube....
> [...]
>Our Dm fired a warning shot across the bows last night. Our own
>spellcasters can cast 7th (and in some cases 8th) level spells and we
>rely on buffing spells a lot. On a GREATER TELEPORT (but NOT part of a
>Scry/Buff/Teleport sequence - we have a Gentleman's Agreement not to
>use those in either direction) we arrived at our destination "and you
>hear the last few words of a MORDENKAINEN'S DISJUNCTION..."
>
>After giving us some time to ponder the probable consequences, we
>learned that is was a lower-level caster using a scroll - which
>fizzled. The caster (part of a group trying to desecrate a Temple of
>Wee Jas by getting rid of a Permanent WALL OF FIRE cast by a VERY high
>level caster - and probably not yet aware of us) told his allies "It's
>OK, I have another scroll" and was reaching for a scroll tube....
>Mage�s Disjunction
>Abjuration
>Level: Magic 9, Sor/Wiz 9
>Components: V
>Casting Time: 1 standard action
>Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
>Area: All magical effects and magic items within a 40-ft-radius burst
>Abjuration
>Level: Magic 9, Sor/Wiz 9
>Components: V
>Casting Time: 1 standard action
>Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
How did the NPC's friends feel about possibly being affected by his
spell on a scroll?
--
"Re-electing Obama is like backing The Titanic up and hitting the
iceberg a second time."
Harold Groot
May 8, 2013, 12:46:44 AM5/8/13
to
On Wed, 08 May 2013 00:02:09 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
wrote:
Originally they were out of the 40' radius range, just wanting to
witness the desecration of the Temple/Magical Flame. They knew a
battle was happening across town (us, before the GREATER TELEPORT) but
thought that they'd have time for this.
What they will do now is up to the DM. They probably don't currently
have a lot of buffs up (less to lose there), but their Will Saves
probably aren't anywhere near as good as ours (more to lose by being
in the area in spite of having fewer items) - but if they kill us
debuffed, a LOT of loot for them. I expect they'll charge right in.
wrote:
witness the desecration of the Temple/Magical Flame. They knew a
battle was happening across town (us, before the GREATER TELEPORT) but
thought that they'd have time for this.
What they will do now is up to the DM. They probably don't currently
have a lot of buffs up (less to lose there), but their Will Saves
probably aren't anywhere near as good as ours (more to lose by being
in the area in spite of having fewer items) - but if they kill us
debuffed, a LOT of loot for them. I expect they'll charge right in.
Telok
May 8, 2013, 4:29:09 AM5/8/13
to
There are bunches of ways to deal with Disjunctions.
It has a 40' range and won't penetrate total cover. A tower shield can offer
complete protection from Disjunction.
Artifacts. Everyone thinks twice about using Disjunction when there are
artifacts around. Trying to get a Hammer of Thunderbolts (nice things for melee
will be easier to get than Staffs of Power), Deck of Many Things (just don't
use it), or Crystal Hypnosis Ball (cursed, but an artifact). => Be sure you
advertise your artifact! <= Doomsday options are of no use if nobody knows that
you have them.
Last is Contingency. Wizards and (smart) Sorcerers will have access to the
spell and if a Divination indicates that you may face Disjunction this week it
might well be worth the time to change your Contingency to a anti-Disjunction
spell. If the non-casters want a Contingency you can do that too. A charisma
buff, a potion of Divine Insight (Complete Adventurer, pay for the caster level
10), and a Ring of Improved UMD (ala the Improved Swimming ring except
_useful_) can get you to +27 for the DC31 UMD check of a Contingency scroll.
The easy way is to get your friendly mage to take Craft Wondrous Item and make
single use Contingency elixir, tablets, or whatever. The Wondrous Item route
costs twice as much per scroll but has no set up costs or chance of failure.
It has a 40' range and won't penetrate total cover. A tower shield can offer
complete protection from Disjunction.
Artifacts. Everyone thinks twice about using Disjunction when there are
artifacts around. Trying to get a Hammer of Thunderbolts (nice things for melee
will be easier to get than Staffs of Power), Deck of Many Things (just don't
use it), or Crystal Hypnosis Ball (cursed, but an artifact). => Be sure you
advertise your artifact! <= Doomsday options are of no use if nobody knows that
you have them.
Last is Contingency. Wizards and (smart) Sorcerers will have access to the
spell and if a Divination indicates that you may face Disjunction this week it
might well be worth the time to change your Contingency to a anti-Disjunction
spell. If the non-casters want a Contingency you can do that too. A charisma
buff, a potion of Divine Insight (Complete Adventurer, pay for the caster level
10), and a Ring of Improved UMD (ala the Improved Swimming ring except
_useful_) can get you to +27 for the DC31 UMD check of a Contingency scroll.
The easy way is to get your friendly mage to take Craft Wondrous Item and make
single use Contingency elixir, tablets, or whatever. The Wondrous Item route
costs twice as much per scroll but has no set up costs or chance of failure.
tussock
May 8, 2013, 9:18:00 AM5/8/13
to
Harold Groot wrote:
<snip: Mordenkainen knows what "9th level" means>
I'll just note the spell is generally a mess, because the authors and
proofreaders all "know how it works" so the slop slips on through.
> Mage's Disjunction
> Abjuration
> Level: Magic 9, Sor/Wiz 9
> Components: V
> Casting Time: 1 standard action
> Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
> Area: All magical effects and magic items within a 40-ft.-radius burst
> Duration: Instantaneous
> Saving Throw: Will negates (object)
> Spell Resistance: No
> 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.
<snip>
So, "except for those that you carry or touch" doesn't actually except
those that you carry or touch. "Magical effects" is a reserved word used
throughout the book that includes supernatural abilities. See under "Special
Abilities" PHB 3.5 pp180. However, supernatural abilities cannot be
dispelled, and Disjunction ends the effect "as a dispel magic spell does",
which is not at all to supernatural abilities.
"Permanent magic item" is a phrase only found in that one spell, which
is basically a cut & paste to there from AD&D2, in turn from Unearthed
Arcana. Ignore it, there's no special distinction for charged items in 3e,
you build them just like +1 swords, and they break just like +1 swords; the
term they should have used for the edition at hand is "magic items".
--
tussock
<snip: Mordenkainen knows what "9th level" means>
I'll just note the spell is generally a mess, because the authors and
proofreaders all "know how it works" so the slop slips on through.
> Mage's Disjunction
> Abjuration
> Level: Magic 9, Sor/Wiz 9
> Components: V
> Casting Time: 1 standard action
> Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
> Area: All magical effects and magic items within a 40-ft.-radius burst
> Duration: Instantaneous
> Saving Throw: Will negates (object)
> Spell Resistance: No
> 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.
So, "except for those that you carry or touch" doesn't actually except
those that you carry or touch. "Magical effects" is a reserved word used
throughout the book that includes supernatural abilities. See under "Special
Abilities" PHB 3.5 pp180. However, supernatural abilities cannot be
dispelled, and Disjunction ends the effect "as a dispel magic spell does",
which is not at all to supernatural abilities.
"Permanent magic item" is a phrase only found in that one spell, which
is basically a cut & paste to there from AD&D2, in turn from Unearthed
Arcana. Ignore it, there's no special distinction for charged items in 3e,
you build them just like +1 swords, and they break just like +1 swords; the
term they should have used for the edition at hand is "magic items".
--
tussock
Phil Turner
May 8, 2013, 3:35:14 PM5/8/13
to
In <8tvp5ax...@scrub2.WOOLEY> tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> writes:
<snip>
> So, "except for those that you carry or touch" doesn't actually except
>those that you carry or touch.
I'd read that as "except for those the caster is carrying or touching"
<snip>
> So, "except for those that you carry or touch" doesn't actually except
>those that you carry or touch.
- so the spell breaks everyone's toys EXCEPT your own.
<snip>
Loren Pechtel
May 8, 2013, 5:36:58 PM5/8/13
to
On Wed, 08 May 2013 04:46:44 GMT, que...@infionline.net (Harold
Groot) wrote:
>>How did the NPC's friends feel about possibly being affected by his
>>spell on a scroll?
>
>Originally they were out of the 40' radius range, just wanting to
>witness the desecration of the Temple/Magical Flame. They knew a
>battle was happening across town (us, before the GREATER TELEPORT) but
>thought that they'd have time for this.
>
>What they will do now is up to the DM. They probably don't currently
>have a lot of buffs up (less to lose there), but their Will Saves
>probably aren't anywhere near as good as ours (more to lose by being
>in the area in spite of having fewer items) - but if they kill us
>debuffed, a LOT of loot for them. I expect they'll charge right in.
I can't picture them charging into the AOE of a disjunction, nor do I
Groot) wrote:
>>How did the NPC's friends feel about possibly being affected by his
>>spell on a scroll?
>
>Originally they were out of the 40' radius range, just wanting to
>witness the desecration of the Temple/Magical Flame. They knew a
>battle was happening across town (us, before the GREATER TELEPORT) but
>thought that they'd have time for this.
>
>What they will do now is up to the DM. They probably don't currently
>have a lot of buffs up (less to lose there), but their Will Saves
>probably aren't anywhere near as good as ours (more to lose by being
>in the area in spite of having fewer items) - but if they kill us
>debuffed, a LOT of loot for them. I expect they'll charge right in.
think the NPC would use it if he saw his friends charging in.
If the NPC has any sense he'll run.
Joanna Rowland Stuart
May 8, 2013, 5:37:00 PM5/8/13
to
In article <SNxit.11033$PV5....@fx22.fr7>,
Cheers
JOanna
phil....@bltuaeyontdetr.co.uk (Phil Turner) wrote:
> > So, "except for those that you carry or touch" doesn't
> actually except >those that you carry or touch.
>
> I'd read that as "except for those the caster is carrying or
> touching"
> - so the spell breaks everyone's toys EXCEPT your own.
WHS!
> > So, "except for those that you carry or touch" doesn't
> actually except >those that you carry or touch.
>
> I'd read that as "except for those the caster is carrying or
> touching"
> - so the spell breaks everyone's toys EXCEPT your own.
Cheers
JOanna
Harold Groot
May 8, 2013, 6:48:03 PM5/8/13
to
a tendency to kill minions who fail in their tasks, that can change
how often "running away" would be used as a tactic.
And of course, with all the monsters having the same initiative the DM
gets to choose the MD scroll-reader to go first (while the rest are
still out of range) and THEN have all the others charge in.
In D&D there have always been a LOT of enemies who fight to the death
when they shouldn't. It makes the game more fun to play. So maybe all
the others have only been told that the scroll has a spell that will
hopefully bring down the PERMANENT WALL OF FIRE. They simply may not
KNOW that it would destroy their own magic items.
Loren Pechtel
May 8, 2013, 8:38:55 PM5/8/13
to
On Wed, 08 May 2013 22:48:03 GMT, que...@infionline.net (Harold
Groot) wrote:
>>I can't picture them charging into the AOE of a disjunction, nor do I
>>think the NPC would use it if he saw his friends charging in.
>>
>>If the NPC has any sense he'll run.
>
>I guess that would depend on the penalty for failure. If the boss has
>a tendency to kill minions who fail in their tasks, that can change
>how often "running away" would be used as a tactic.
Better to come back to try another day than have a disjuction destroy
Groot) wrote:
>>I can't picture them charging into the AOE of a disjunction, nor do I
>>think the NPC would use it if he saw his friends charging in.
>>
>>If the NPC has any sense he'll run.
>
>I guess that would depend on the penalty for failure. If the boss has
>a tendency to kill minions who fail in their tasks, that can change
>how often "running away" would be used as a tactic.
a bunch of the boss' expensive equipment.
>And of course, with all the monsters having the same initiative the DM
>gets to choose the MD scroll-reader to go first (while the rest are
>still out of range) and THEN have all the others charge in.
never with casters or other important actors.
>In D&D there have always been a LOT of enemies who fight to the death
>when they shouldn't. It makes the game more fun to play. So maybe all
>the others have only been told that the scroll has a spell that will
>hopefully bring down the PERMANENT WALL OF FIRE. They simply may not
>KNOW that it would destroy their own magic items.
Harold Groot
May 9, 2013, 12:36:30 AM5/9/13
to
get off a MD from a scroll (given 2+ tries), but he's not going to be
an "important actor" in a 15th/16th level campaign. He's been sent
because the Big Bad doesn't want to take care minor actions
personally. And he may or may not CARE about the other people in the
room. If they're HIS bodyguards/minions they're expendable - they're
only there to give him time to get away from the 15th/16th level PCs.
And if the caster not only manages to fulfill his mission (taking out
the WALL OF FIRE) but as a bonus he ALSO significantly weakens the
PCs, his boss might be very pleased even if he loses ALL of the
cannon-fodder.
tussock
May 8, 2013, 11:39:44 PM5/8/13
to
Phil Turner wrote:
3e that gets written as "you", because "you" might not be a "spellcaster".
My bad.
--
tussock
> tussock wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> So, "except for those that you carry or touch" doesn't actually except
>> those that you carry or touch.
>
> I'd read that as "except for those the caster is carrying or touching"
> - so the spell breaks everyone's toys EXCEPT your own.
Ah, of course. In the older editions it exempts "the spellcaster" but in
> <snip>
>
>> So, "except for those that you carry or touch" doesn't actually except
>> those that you carry or touch.
>
> I'd read that as "except for those the caster is carrying or touching"
> - so the spell breaks everyone's toys EXCEPT your own.
3e that gets written as "you", because "you" might not be a "spellcaster".
My bad.
--
tussock
Harold Groot
May 9, 2013, 7:39:52 PM5/9/13
to
On Thu, 09 May 2013 01:18 +1200, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> "Permanent magic item" is a phrase only found in that one spell, which
>is basically a cut & paste to there from AD&D2, in turn from Unearthed
>Arcana. Ignore it, there's no special distinction for charged items in 3e,
>you build them just like +1 swords, and they break just like +1 swords; the
>term they should have used for the edition at hand is "magic items".
> tussock
> "Permanent magic item" is a phrase only found in that one spell, which
>is basically a cut & paste to there from AD&D2, in turn from Unearthed
>Arcana. Ignore it, there's no special distinction for charged items in 3e,
>you build them just like +1 swords, and they break just like +1 swords; the
>term they should have used for the edition at hand is "magic items".
Looking around, I find that the phrase "permanent magic items" is also
used in the DMG in the section on Intelligent magic items (p.268):
"Only permanent magic items (as opposed to single-use items or those
with charges) can be intelligent. (This means that potions, scrolls
and wands, among other items, are never intelligent.)"
This indicates that potions, scrolls and wands should NOT get a save
against M'S DISJUNCTION. But this also goes directly counter to the MD
usage from AD&D days (when PERMANENCY was used on "permanent items")
where MD used the same language about "permanent items" but also
mentioned that scrolls and potions were in the list of things that
"could possibly" lose their enchantment.
In my personal opinion, the INTENT of that list from AD&D days was
just to say that you could, in fact, have EVERYTHING get destroyed by
MD. Including some items in the list that were AUTOMATICALLY destroyed
(non-permanent items like potions and scrolls) along with the ones
that got saves (permanent items) was a poor way to express that, but I
think that that was the INTENT.
Of course, in 3E you also have to look at Line Of Effect. If a potion
is inside a sealed glass container, is there Line Of Effect to the
actual magical part (the liquid inside the container)? If a scroll is
inside a scroll case, is there Line Of Effect there? Things inside a
Heward's Handy Haversack, Bag of Holding, Quiver of Ehlonna and
similar items are pretty clearly not on this plane - but how about
items stored inside a normal knapsack? MD is a burst, not a spread.
It can't go around corners. In 2E you didn't have Line Of Effect
wording as a Term Of Art. Spells like this pretty much affected
everything within the area (setting aside things like lead boxes). But
in 3E Line Of Effect is part of the game.
So it seems a rather muddled mess, just the sort of thing that would
hopefully have been recognized and clarified somewhere. But there's no
help in the FAQ or Errata, and no one has mentioned an article in
Dragon or on the WotC website, so I guess it just remains a muddled
mess.
tussock
May 10, 2013, 11:57:35 AM5/10/13
to
Harold Groot wrote:
> "Only permanent magic items (as opposed to single-use items or those
> with charges) can be intelligent. (This means that potions, scrolls
> and wands, among other items, are never intelligent.)"
They missed ammunition. Ah, but for the days when only your sword would
sing you songs on cold winter nights while hunting horrors that can not be
left to roam unmolested.
> This indicates that potions, scrolls and wands should NOT get a save
> against M'S DISJUNCTION.
Meh.
> But this also goes directly counter to the MD usage from AD&D days
> (when PERMANENCY was used on "permanent items") where MD used the same
> language about "permanent items" but also mentioned that scrolls and
> potions were in the list of things that "could possibly" lose their
> enchantment.
Right.
> In my personal opinion, the INTENT of that list from AD&D days was
> just to say that you could, in fact, have EVERYTHING get destroyed by
> MD.
Yep. It's clearest in UA,
Unearthed Arcana (1st edition) wrote:
> Thus, all potions, scrolls, rings, rods et al, miscellaneous magic items,
> artifacts and relics, arms and armor, swords and miscellaneous weapons
> within 3 " of the spell caster can possibly lose all their magical
> properties when Mordenkainen's Disjunction is cast.
My reading (especially after a couple of corrections here and further
reads) is there's no change of intent through the editions, just tweaking
the mechanics to match the edition and trying to keep the lingo in order.
Well, up to Pathfinder. It skipped 4th AFAICT, and isn't in 5th yet. The
Pathfinder version supresses items unless they get a natural 1 on the save,
and includes notes on interaction with AMF and various other spells.
Harold Groot wrote:
> Of course, in 3E you also have to look at Line Of Effect.
In that case, the only things which can be disjoined are surface items.
You need a 1' square hole to get LOE, so your britches are safe. Probably
fall back on Dispel Magic, seeing as Disjunction mentions it.
> So it seems a rather muddled mess, just the sort of thing that would
> hopefully have been recognized and clarified somewhere. But there's no
> help in the FAQ or Errata, and no one has mentioned an article in
> Dragon or on the WotC website, so I guess it just remains a muddled
> mess.
I recall an article on their (WotC) website on Anti-Magic Field, which
was really just a multi-page excuse for not writing an article on Anti-Magic
Field, on account of how stupid that got if you tried to apply the rules.
By a strict reading of the rules, Disjunction may not do all that much
to anyone wearing a non-magical cloak, despite what it claims to do in the
text. Except that items you carry sort of are "you", from a rules
perspective, in most ways, so, uh, I forget. I'm pretty sure anyone with an
argument would sway me at the table. Hehe.
--
tussock
> tussock wrote:
>
>> "Permanent magic item" is a phrase only found in that one spell, which
>> is basically a cut & paste to there from AD&D2, in turn from Unearthed
>> Arcana. Ignore it, there's no special distinction for charged items in
>> 3e, you build them just like +1 swords, and they break just like +1
>> swords; the term they should have used for the edition at hand is "magic
>> items".
>
>
>> "Permanent magic item" is a phrase only found in that one spell, which
>> is basically a cut & paste to there from AD&D2, in turn from Unearthed
>> Arcana. Ignore it, there's no special distinction for charged items in
>> 3e, you build them just like +1 swords, and they break just like +1
>> swords; the term they should have used for the edition at hand is "magic
>> items".
>
> Looking around, I find that the phrase "permanent magic items" is also
> used in the DMG in the section on Intelligent magic items (p.268):
Good catch, wasn't my best effort that post. 8]
> used in the DMG in the section on Intelligent magic items (p.268):
> "Only permanent magic items (as opposed to single-use items or those
> with charges) can be intelligent. (This means that potions, scrolls
> and wands, among other items, are never intelligent.)"
sing you songs on cold winter nights while hunting horrors that can not be
left to roam unmolested.
> This indicates that potions, scrolls and wands should NOT get a save
> against M'S DISJUNCTION.
> But this also goes directly counter to the MD usage from AD&D days
> (when PERMANENCY was used on "permanent items") where MD used the same
> language about "permanent items" but also mentioned that scrolls and
> potions were in the list of things that "could possibly" lose their
> enchantment.
> In my personal opinion, the INTENT of that list from AD&D days was
> just to say that you could, in fact, have EVERYTHING get destroyed by
> MD.
Unearthed Arcana (1st edition) wrote:
> Thus, all potions, scrolls, rings, rods et al, miscellaneous magic items,
> artifacts and relics, arms and armor, swords and miscellaneous weapons
> within 3 " of the spell caster can possibly lose all their magical
> properties when Mordenkainen's Disjunction is cast.
My reading (especially after a couple of corrections here and further
reads) is there's no change of intent through the editions, just tweaking
the mechanics to match the edition and trying to keep the lingo in order.
Well, up to Pathfinder. It skipped 4th AFAICT, and isn't in 5th yet. The
Pathfinder version supresses items unless they get a natural 1 on the save,
and includes notes on interaction with AMF and various other spells.
Harold Groot wrote:
> Of course, in 3E you also have to look at Line Of Effect.
You need a 1' square hole to get LOE, so your britches are safe. Probably
fall back on Dispel Magic, seeing as Disjunction mentions it.
> So it seems a rather muddled mess, just the sort of thing that would
> hopefully have been recognized and clarified somewhere. But there's no
> help in the FAQ or Errata, and no one has mentioned an article in
> Dragon or on the WotC website, so I guess it just remains a muddled
> mess.
was really just a multi-page excuse for not writing an article on Anti-Magic
Field, on account of how stupid that got if you tried to apply the rules.
By a strict reading of the rules, Disjunction may not do all that much
to anyone wearing a non-magical cloak, despite what it claims to do in the
text. Except that items you carry sort of are "you", from a rules
perspective, in most ways, so, uh, I forget. I'm pretty sure anyone with an
argument would sway me at the table. Hehe.
--
tussock
Harold Groot
May 10, 2013, 6:40:14 PM5/10/13
to
On Sat, 11 May 2013 03:57:35 +1200, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz>
wrote:
>Harold Groot wrote:
>> Of course, in 3E you also have to look at Line Of Effect.
> In that case, the only things which can be disjoined are surface items.
>You need a 1' square hole to get LOE, so your britches are safe. Probably
>fall back on Dispel Magic, seeing as Disjunction mentions it.
Going back to what I think is the INTENT of the MD, I think I would
use what they use for "what blocks magic" on some other spells (like
the various DETECT spells) - 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of metal, a thin
sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt. In other words, standard
potion flasks and scrollcases and backpacks and such DON'T protect
against MD.
wrote:
>Harold Groot wrote:
>> Of course, in 3E you also have to look at Line Of Effect.
> In that case, the only things which can be disjoined are surface items.
>You need a 1' square hole to get LOE, so your britches are safe. Probably
>fall back on Dispel Magic, seeing as Disjunction mentions it.
use what they use for "what blocks magic" on some other spells (like
the various DETECT spells) - 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of metal, a thin
sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt. In other words, standard
potion flasks and scrollcases and backpacks and such DON'T protect
against MD.
Joanna Rowland Stuart
May 10, 2013, 7:01:00 PM5/10/13
to
In article <518d74e6...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
Even that makes it too powerful - otherwise MD could affect items in a
sarcophagus, coffin, or log cabin....
Otherwise I foresee parties having lead-lined scroll cases, potion flask
boxes (and for the paranoid, cloaks and outer clothing), looking like a
NEST team.
"OK guys, put all the spare magic items in the lead-lined MIL-STD-1766B
MD-proof rucksack"
Cheers
JOanna
Even that makes it too powerful - otherwise MD could affect items in a
sarcophagus, coffin, or log cabin....
Otherwise I foresee parties having lead-lined scroll cases, potion flask
boxes (and for the paranoid, cloaks and outer clothing), looking like a
NEST team.
"OK guys, put all the spare magic items in the lead-lined MIL-STD-1766B
MD-proof rucksack"
Cheers
JOanna
Harold Groot
May 10, 2013, 7:45:08 PM5/10/13
to
the high-level 1E games I was in. The "Screw over the players"
attitude was much more common back then.
Tetsubo
May 10, 2013, 8:12:40 PM5/10/13
to
players. Ah the bad old days...
tussock
May 11, 2013, 9:11:04 AM5/11/13
to
Harold Groot wrote:
Careful, that's "what stops divination", and divination spells often
don't use the default rules for LOE. Disjunction should be using the rules
for an area spell burst, and then you choose if "every item in the burst"
includes items without LOE to the point of origin.
I think a perfectly fair ruling is that items in use (or exposed in
quick-access belts, scabbards, whatever) can be disjoined and items stowed
away cannot be. Saves time rolling dice for your junk, risks all the
important stuff, can't be trivially bypassed or avoided. No problem.
That's probably not the rule though. You're in the LOE, so all your
possessions are included. Despite what it says about item saves vs damage in
3e, where all your possesions are actually invulnerable to most magic. Meh.
--
tussock
don't use the default rules for LOE. Disjunction should be using the rules
for an area spell burst, and then you choose if "every item in the burst"
includes items without LOE to the point of origin.
I think a perfectly fair ruling is that items in use (or exposed in
quick-access belts, scabbards, whatever) can be disjoined and items stowed
away cannot be. Saves time rolling dice for your junk, risks all the
important stuff, can't be trivially bypassed or avoided. No problem.
That's probably not the rule though. You're in the LOE, so all your
possessions are included. Despite what it says about item saves vs damage in
3e, where all your possesions are actually invulnerable to most magic. Meh.
--
tussock
0 new messages