"if an artifact is destroyed, you must make a DC 25 Will save or permanently lose all spellcasting abilities"
What exactly does this mean? Does it include Racial spell-like abilities, Cantrips, or other class abilities? Are you just a Wizard/Sorcerer without spell slots? What would a Wizard/Sorcerer have and not have? If multi-classed would you loose spell casting in all classes before and even after the Will failure? Would the character be able to pick up a few levels in Cleric and cast spells from that class or are they doomed to hit the bottle and live in the gutter while constantly muttering about how he use to be able to mold the very rules of the cosmos to his bidding while eating out of a garbage can? Do you think that sentence was too long? Do you wonder how hard it would be to write a story ending with only "?"s? Should I not post just after only having a few hours of sleep and working a ten-hour shifts for a few days in a row? Does anyone have any suggestions on the first few questions? I sure do ramble when tired, Eh?
Spell-Like Abilities are not spells, so they are not affected. Class Features other than "Spells" are not affected. Class Features called "Spells" are completely removed from your character sheet permanently.
It's unclear whether you could gain spellcasting abilities from a new class. I would say "no". Mage's disjunction is not the intended way to destroy an artifact.
Yeah if you are disjunctioning artifacts you're really disparate. The cost is the magical backlash that could wipe out your ability to cast spells. Of course at the point you can cast Mage's Disjuntion a DC 25 Will save shouldn't be too big of a problem for you...
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
"if an artifact is destroyed, you must make a DC 25 Will save or permanently lose all spellcasting abilities"
1) Does it include Racial spell-like abilities, Cantrips, or other class abilities?
2) Are you just a Wizard/Sorcerer without spell slots?
3) If multi-classed would you loose spell casting in all classes before and even after the Will failure?
4) Would the character be able to pick up a few levels in Cleric and cast spells ... ?
1) No
2) Yes3) Before failing? No After failing? Yes
4) No, he wouldn't be able to learn new spellcasting (think of it as the gods coming down to squish you.
"if an artifact is destroyed, you must make a DC 25 Will save or permanently lose all spellcasting abilities"
What exactly does this mean? Does it include Racial spell-like abilities, Cantrips, or other class abilities? Are you just a Wizard/Sorcerer without spell slots? What would a Wizard/Sorcerer have and not have? If multi-classed would you loose spell casting in all classes before and even after the Will failure? Would the character be able to pick up a few levels in Cleric and cast spells from that class or are they doomed to hit the bottle and live in the gutter while constantly muttering about how he use to be able to mold the very rules of the cosmos to his bidding while eating out of a garbage can? Do you think that sentence was too long? Do you wonder how hard it would be to write a story ending with only "?"s? Should I not post just after only having a few hours of sleep and working a ten-hour shifts for a few days in a row? Does anyone have any suggestions on the first few questions? I sure do ramble when tired, Eh?
"if an artifact is destroyed, you must make a DC 25 Will save or permanently lose all spellcasting abilities"
What exactly does this mean? Does it include Racial spell-like abilities, Cantrips, or other class abilities? Are you just a Wizard/Sorcerer without spell slots? What would a Wizard/Sorcerer have and not have? If multi-classed would you loose spell casting in all classes before and even after the Will failure? Would the character be able to pick up a few levels in Cleric and cast spells from that class or are they doomed to hit the bottle and live in the gutter while constantly muttering about how he use to be able to mold the very rules of the cosmos to his bidding while eating out of a garbage can? Do you think that sentence was too long? Do you wonder how hard it would be to write a story ending with only "?"s? Should I not post just after only having a few hours of sleep and working a ten-hour shifts for a few days in a row? Does anyone have any suggestions on the first few questions? I sure do ramble when tired, Eh?
It's pretty self-explanatory if you ask me. It's an 'if-then' statement. If an artifact is destroyed, and if you then fail a DC 25 Will save, Then...
permanently = forever, no matter of any future conditions, provisos, life path choices or anything else.
lose = it's gone.
all = each and every.
spellcasting = the casting of spells
abilities = that thing that means you can do something.
Therefore, one might say QED even, if you do action one, then follow by action two, consequence three occurs.
As previously stated, this does not affect:
Racial abilities
Class abilities that are not the casting of spells
This specifically, one might say explicitly, does affect:
All spellcasting abilities. Regardless of class, level and source.
Divine casting by a cleric, paladin, ranger, druid, etc, etc, ad infinitum. Gone.
Arcane casting by a wizard, sorcerer, mystic theurge, Tim the Enchanter, etc, etc, ad nauseum. Gone.
Permanently is the word in question here.
Gaining levels in another spell casting class would not overcome permanently, even if one multi-classes to a completely different flavor of magic (eg a Wizard bouncing to Cleric or vice versa)
I also ramble when tired, and doubly so when I'm sick.
Let's do a few things on how to rectify one's post-Will save failure in such a situation.
A very carefully worded Wish would reverse this condition. And this is the kind of wish that I would make my player write out, double check, get notarized and then cast to make sure that he has the wording precise before it goes off before I'd let him get it back.
A Miracle cast on the character's behalf might work. But it would seriously depend on who was casting it, what artifact had been destroyed, why the artifact was destroyed, and the current whim and mood of the deity being beseeched.
In summation, artifacts are IMPORTANT. They are not to be casually folded, spindled, mutilated and disjuncted. They are most commonly created by deities or incredibly powerful mortals with powers beyond the average ken of even the greatest heroes.
If Merlin came along and slapped Disjunction on Excalibur, I would expect some serious repercussions.
Were this my game, I would probably house rule the exact effect of disjunction on an artifact. It is this woman's, namely mine, opinion that this is actually a fairly tame consequence for having borked an artifact. I would, depending on the artifact, force the player in question to do one of the following:
DC 30 Will save or die, and as per Sphere of Annihilation, no chance to resurrect.
DC 30 Reflex save vs the Sphere of Annihilation created in the wake of the artifact's destruction.
No save and suffer the wrath of the artifact's creator, similar to drawing The Devil card in the Deck of Many Things.
In all honesty, the DC 25 Will save is a bit of a joke. By the time a caster can drop Disjunction in the first place, they'll almost have to roll a 1 to fail a DC 25 Will save.
Why am I so harsh on this? More examples.
PC casts disjunction on the Hand (or Eye) of Vecna. You had best BELIEVE that Vecna's going to be Very Cranky to say the least.
PC casts disjunction on The Codex of the Infinite Planes. Blam, instant cross planar disintegration.
Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad.
Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm a little fuzzy on the whole "good/bad" thing here. What do you mean, "bad"?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Dr. Ray Stantz: Total protonic reversal!
Dr. Peter Venkman: That's bad. Okay. All right, important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.
As a related, but slightly different example, look at it this way. If one BREAKS a Staff of the Magi, there's that wonderfluffy thing called a "retributive strike". I think that the damage for that should be used as a minimum basis for artifact destruction.
And now that I've beaten this dead horse into a frothy pink pulp, I think I'm going to go back to a codeine induced comatose state.
Thank you, and good night!
"if an artifact is destroyed, you must make a DC 25 Will save or permanently lose all spellcasting abilities"
1) Does it include Racial spell-like abilities, Cantrips, or other class abilities?
2) Are you just a Wizard/Sorcerer without spell slots?
3) If multi-classed would you loose spell casting in all classes before and even after the Will failure?
4) Would the character be able to pick up a few levels in Cleric and cast spells ... ?1) No
2) Yes
3) Before failing? No After failing? Yes
4) No, he wouldn't be able to learn new spellcasting (think of it as the gods coming down to squish you.
I might disagree, slightly, by saying that as re: item 1, Cantrips may or may not be spells. Per PRD:
Cantrips: Wizards can prepare a number of cantrips, or 0-level spells, each day, as noted on Table: Wizard under “Spells per Day.” These spells are cast like any other spell, but they are not expended when cast and may be used again. A wizard can prepare a cantrip from a prohibited school, but it uses up two of his available slots (see below).
It's a class feature, but within that it says 0-level spells. I'd leave that, at the end of the day, to the GM.
When it comes down to it, being able to cast cantrips is pretty meaningless for someone who used to be able to cast Disjunction. I could even see it being an annoying reminder of the power that the character used to have. "Yes, here's a teeny bit of trivial magic you can do, you who used to be able to bend the universe to your whim. But you can't do anything more than that." (I'm also having visions of "to the pain" from the Princess Bride right now.)
It also seems to me that (regardless of whether or not cantrips are retained) the character is no longer a viable PC. Even if the character read disjunction off a scroll, there's probably at least 15 levels of classes that have lost most of their power.
Which makes me wonder about a related question. What happens if a rogue disjunctions an artifact by using UMD to read a scroll and then fails the save? Clearly, multi-classing into a casting class is a bad idea, but can he still use UMD? He has no actual casting ability, but is quite good at faking it.
On one side it would really suck to lose all spellcasting, but it could be interesting to see what a high intelligence character with some neat magic items and some skill in alchemy could do. With some creativity you can almost remake the artificier from a character with lots of knowledge in magic. With some creativity it could be a really fun character to play.
I could see an ex-mage who lost his arcane power turning to nethys and becoming a cleric and replacing those wizard levels 1 at a time with cleric levels, sort of like a paladin trading in paladin levels for blackguard, but a slower process.
Some artifacts need to be destroyed in the eyes of some characters.
As to calling down the wrath of the gods, by the time mages can cast disjunciton they are close to becoming deities themselves, and I could see the gods having a challenge in a straight out battle. Obviously some are stronger than others.
How about reversing the disjunction spell and instead of destroying the artifact you pull all of it's power into you.. that's a way cooler idea. Hey everyone likes free magic.
*snip* ...Which makes me wonder about a related question. What happens if a rogue disjunctions an artifact by using UMD to read a scroll and then fails the save? Clearly, multi-classing into a casting class is a bad idea, but can he still use UMD? He has no actual casting ability, but is quite good at faking it.
A rogue who took the magic rogue talents would lose his 2 spells :)
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I might disagree, slightly, by saying that as re: item 1, Cantrips may or may not be spells.
Sorry, I missed that. It shouldn't be in debate whether or not Cantrips (0 level spells) are spells or not. They are never described in any way other than 0 levels spells, so by RAW they are spells. Spells that are not expended, but spells non the less.
|
I think people are being a little to liberal with what the spell says. I think only the current spellcasting (including 0 level spells) would be gone. Wish and Miracle specifically do not work except from a deity-like creature.
It doesn't say any further spellcasting levels would not work, though. Just like taking HP damage, those HP are permanetly gone, but healing grants more. Or better yet, ability drain. Those ability scores are gone forever, (though spells can recover them) but you may still later increase that score with items or level stat gains.
So I'd say yes, you could take and use Cleric levels just fine, as you didn't have that spellcasting when you cast Disjunction and therefore couldn't be lost.
I think people are being a little to liberal with what the spell says. I think only the current spellcasting (including 0 level spells) would be gone. Wish and Miracle specifically do not work except from a deity-like creature.
It doesn't say any further spellcasting levels would not work, though. Just like taking HP damage, those HP are permanetly gone, but healing grants more. Or better yet, ability drain. Those ability scores are gone forever, (though spells can recover them) but you may still later increase that score with items or level stat gains.
So I'd say yes, you could take and use Cleric levels just fine, as you didn't have that spellcasting when you cast Disjunction and therefore couldn't be lost.
It says "removes all spellcasting ability permanently". It's not very permanent if you can then go and level up and voila, you can cast spells again.
It says "removes all spellcasting ability permanently". It's not very permanent if you can then go and level up and voila, you can cast spells again.
That's your interpretation, and that's fine. It's not wrong to explain another way though. Like the previous example, level 17 wizard disjunction's an artifact, magic is ripped from his body. He becomes a priest of Nethys. He starts learning Orisons and level 1 spells that are given by his Deity. The magic no longer comes from the wizards study of arcane arts, but comes as a divine blessing.
He starts learning Orisons and level 1 spells that are given by his Deity. The magic no longer comes from the wizards study of arcane arts, but comes as a divine blessing.
But he still casts spells, which conflicts with the phrase "removes all spellcasting ability permanently". Another way to word it and mean the same thing is "permanently remove the ability to cast spells". Divine casters still cast spells, so since you permanently lose the ability to cast spells, you still can't cast spells.
Hopefully you're in good faith with a friendly deity to reverse this. . .
He starts learning Orisons and level 1 spells that are given by his Deity. The magic no longer comes from the wizards study of arcane arts, but comes as a divine blessing.But he still casts spells, which conflicts with the phrase "removes all spellcasting ability permanently". Another way to word it and mean the same thing is "permanently remove the ability to cast spells". Divine casters still cast spells, so since you permanently lose the ability to cast spells, you still can't cast spells.
Hopefully you're in good faith with a friendly deity to reverse this. . .
A valid interpretation. One that I find highly uncreative and boring, but valid none the less.
Which part of a divine caster, especially a cleric, implies not in good standing with their deity? On another note, how many divine spellcasters cast mage's disjunction? I think it's pretty obvious that the two classes that share a similar feature are highly different, but you can think as you will.
As I said, mage's disjunction is NOT the intended way to destroy an artifact. It's intended to have very, very harsh consequences for doing so. And, for the record, there's more than one clerical domain that gets mage's disjunction as a domain spell. Or they could just UMD it from a scroll. Or from a staff. Or any of a dozen other sources.
|
|
What I mean is, at the point that you cast the spell and fail, you lose all spellcasting ability, forever.
It doesn't say (or imply in my opinion) that you can not also gain any different spellcasting. Now in the example wizard, I'm not sying they could either start over again by leveling up in Wizard, or get their powers fully back that way. It is gone, forever.
What I mean is, at the point that you cast the spell and fail, you lose all spellcasting ability, forever.
It doesn't say (or imply in my opinion) that you can not also gain any different spellcasting.
In what way does "lose all spellcasting ability forever" imply that you can cast spells in the future?
In what way does "lose all spellcasting ability forever" imply that you can cast spells in the future?What I mean is, at the point that you cast the spell and fail, you lose all spellcasting ability, forever.
It doesn't say (or imply in my opinion) that you can not also gain any different spellcasting.
Same way Harden is "permanent" spells with a 'permanent' duration can be dispelled.
Permanent isn't the same as always, or forever.
Since this is a "permanent" effect from a spell...
There is a lot of arguing over the self-explanatory here.
If you lose the ability to cast spells permanently, you can never cast spells again. Not never cast arcane spells again, or never cast divine spells again. No spells, ever again.
Same way Harden is "permanent" spells with a 'permanent' duration can be dispelled.
Permanent isn't the same as always, or forever.
Since this is a "permanent" effect from a spell...
Wrong. "Permanent", when applied to the duration of a spell, means it lasts until dispelled. That's a very specific exception to the general rule that permanent does mean forever.
I think the description of mage's disjunction is pretty darn clear as to the intent of the ability: if you fail the save, you can never cast spells again without deific intervention.
Same way Harden is "permanent" spells with a 'permanent' duration can be dispelled.
Permanent isn't the same as always, or forever.
Since this is a "permanent" effect from a spell...
Wrong. "Permanent", when applied to the duration of a spell, means it lasts until dispelled. That's a very specific exception to the general rule that permanent does mean forever.
I think the description of mage's disjunction is pretty darn clear as to the intent of the ability: if you fail the save, you can never cast spells again without deific intervention.
Well you think I'll agree with that. (this is not meant to be derogatory in any way... however you seem pretty certain that your opinion is the only way to salvation here.)
Since you can't cast a spell in an anti-magic field you can't prove it though (since the anti-magic field would negate the lingering "permanent" effect from the disjunction spell allowing you to cast... if it weren't for the anti-magic field).
Any spell with an effect that can't be counter states duration "instanteous" and doesn't state anything else about the duration of its effect in the spell description. Even those spells aren't "permanent" since you could lose hp again (in the case of cure spells) be healed (in the case of direct damage spells) or cut through the wall of stone (in the case of the wall of stone spells). Each of those effects can be done mundanely or magically.
Permanent only means "Until something changes it". It never specifies what that something is.
***
EDIT:
Another thing, I'm pretty certain that in most circumstances this would happen in taking a level of cleric is "deific intervention"... since most times it is a deity (or nearly same level of power origin) giving those spells.
Mage's disjunction's duration is not "permanent". Going by your interpretation, a simple dispel magic will return your ability to cast spells, permanently (oh wait, or is that until another dispel magic is cast and the permanent effect of the first dispel goes away!).
Also, just gaining a level in a divine class is not deific intervention. Deific intervention means a wish or miracle cast by a deity.
Mage's disjunction's duration is not "permanent". Going by your interpretation, a simple dispel magic will return your ability to cast spells, permanently (oh wait, or is that until another dispel magic is cast and the permanent effect of the first dispel goes away!).
Also, just gaining a level in a divine class is not deific intervention. Deific intervention means a wish or miracle cast by a deity.
Dispel magic can not supress your ability to cast spells, this is a strawman argument, you're better than that Zurai.
Um so right, a god granting you spells is not deific in anyway, Good to know.
It would make little sense to me to have disjunction cost you the ability to cast spells in classes you don't have at the time, although depending on how magic works in a world I suppose it could be explained as losing access to the channels in the mind that permit use of magical ability (a la Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar books). But it also eliminates a good role-playing opportunity. Artifacts are magic beyond the ability of mortals to replicate. It'd be an interesting character who blew the save and then started taking levels as a cleric (of the god of magic, or perhaps the god most associated with the artifact) as a form of penance for the act of blowing up the artifact.
Dispel magic can not supress your ability to cast spells, this is a strawman argument, you're better than that Zurai.
Uh, no, actually it uses exactly the same logic that you used. Let's go through, step by step, using your interpretation of mage's disjunction and the word "permanent".
1. Spellcaster successfully disjoins an artifact but fails the save. He loses his ability to cast spells permanently.
2. Spellcaster has his buddy cast dispel magic on him.
3. Buddy succeeds on the caster level check (against the DC set by disjunction, since that's the originating effect according to you), and Spellcaster can permanently cast spells again.
4. Enemy Spellcaster casts dispel magic on Spellcaster.
5. Enemy Spellcaster succeeds on the caster level check (against Buddy's dispel magic DC) and re-engages the loss of spellcasting caused by the permanently dispelled mage's disjunction.
Your interpretation of disjunction states that any effect which is permanent uses the spell duration definition of permanent, which means "lasts until dispelled", even though disjunction does not have a permanent duration. Thus, the loss of spellcasting is dispellable (which is ludicrous in and of itself), and furthermore it can be restored by casting another dispel magic since the removal of the loss of spellcasting was permanent.
Um so right, a god granting you spells is not deific in anyway, Good to know.
To use your own words, you're better than this. For one thing, clerics don't always follow a deity. For another, the spell specifically mentions wish and miracle.
It would make little sense to me to have disjunction cost you the ability to cast spells in classes you don't have at the time, although depending on how magic works in a world I suppose it could be explained as losing access to the channels in the mind that permit use of magical ability (a la Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar books).
It makes perfect sense, actually. Magic is magic. There's no actual difference, behind the scenes, between arcane magic and divine magic, or between the arcane magic cast by a bard, a sorcerer, a wizard, a beguiler, and a spellthief. They're all magic. Losing the ability to cast one form of magic (as opposed to simply losing access to it, such as a cleric who angers their deity/ideal or a wizard who loses his spellbook) loses the ability to cast all forms of magic, because magic is magic.
As I said, mage's disjunction is NOT the intended way to destroy an artifact. It's intended to have very, very harsh consequences for doing so. And, for the record, there's more than one clerical domain that gets mage's disjunction as a domain spell. Or they could just UMD it from a scroll. Or from a staff. Or any of a dozen other sources.
So.. 5% would you say? Good. what IS the intended way to destroy an artifact? Hurry. You only have 5 seconds before the lich sucks the children's lifeforce into his artifact class phylactery. Whoohoo DISJUNCTION FOR THE WIN! good job. Now since you're a level 18 commoner with 30 INT give your character sheet to the DM. You're an NPC now. Roll your new character, this one's drowning himself with the bottle. If he can get past the level 1 goblin warriors that he teleported past that is.
Or, he can start serving his deity of magic in a different way and actually have an interesting, imaginative story. Creativity for the win.
Uh, no, actually it uses exactly the same logic that you used. Let's go through, step by step, using your interpretation of mage's disjunction and the word "permanent".
1. Spellcaster successfully disjoins an artifact but fails the save. He loses his ability to cast spells permanently.
2. Spellcaster has his buddy cast dispel magic on him.
3. Buddy succeeds on the caster level check (against the DC set by disjunction, since that's the originating effect according to you), and Spellcaster can permanently cast spells again.
4. Enemy Spellcaster casts dispel magic on Spellcaster.
5. Enemy Spellcaster succeeds on the caster level check (against Buddy's dispel magic DC) and re-engages the loss of spellcasting caused by the permanently dispelled mage's disjunction.Your interpretation of disjunction states that any effect which is permanent uses the spell duration definition of permanent, which means "lasts until dispelled", even though disjunction does not have a permanent duration. Thus, the loss of spellcasting is dispellable (which is ludicrous in and of itself), and furthermore it can be restored by casting another dispel magic since the removal of the loss of spellcasting was permanent.
To use your own words, you're better than this. For one thing, clerics don't always follow a deity. For another, the spell specifically mentions wish and miracle.
Dispel magic is instantaneous. It doesn't give a duration for the effect, and can't be "redispelled" any more than a fireball can be. Mage's Disjunction in this case gives a "permanent" effect on its own. Permanent effects can be dispelled.
So the cleric in question specifically does have a deity, a worthwhile requirement in this case. It's silly to say one is deific intervention and the other isn't especially if he does become a follow of a god. Though I would be willing to say that the deity in question probably did use a spell or spell like ability when he grants the spells to counter the ongoing permanent effect from the Disjunction.
Mage's Disjunction in this case gives a "permanent" effect on its own.
False. If this were the case, the "Duration:" line would read "1 minute/level or permanent; see text". It does not. Its duration is not permanent using the rules for spell duration permanency. Its duration is permanent using the actual definition of the word.
what IS the intended way to destroy an artifact? Hurry. You only have 5 seconds before the lich sucks the children's lifeforce into his artifact class phylactery.
Whatever it says in the artifact's stat block. Duh. Have you even bothered to look up the rules for artifacts? If mage's disjunction were the intended way to destroy artifacts, there wouldn't need to be a "DESTRUCTION" entry, because disjunction is almost invariably simpler, faster, and easier than the methods listed.
That epic level wizard should feel proud of himself. He destroyed an evil artifact, which is (or at least, should be) the end of the campaign. Rejoice at saving the world/universe/metaverse and start a new campaign.
Mage's Disjunction in this case gives a "permanent" effect on its own.False. If this were the case, the "Duration:" line would read "1 minute/level or permanent; see text". It does not. Its duration is not permanent using the rules for spell duration permanency. Its duration is permanent using the actual definition of the word.
Yes permanent... just like damage -- permanent until fixed, not "Permanent until the end of time". Even then permanent only affects what you have now, not what you will have then (say after gaining a level in cleric, or bard).
BTW magic is not magic in all cases. If that where the way it worked then there wouldn't be distinctions between the different types of magic and magical abilities.
Mage's Disjunction in this case gives a "permanent" effect on its own.False. If this were the case, the "Duration:" line would read "1 minute/level or permanent; see text". It does not. Its duration is not permanent using the rules for spell duration permanency. Its duration is permanent using the actual definition of the word.
what IS the intended way to destroy an artifact? Hurry. You only have 5 seconds before the lich sucks the children's lifeforce into his artifact class phylactery.Whatever it says in the artifact's stat block. Duh. Have you even bothered to look up the rules for artifacts? If mage's disjunction were the intended way to destroy artifacts, there wouldn't need to be a "DESTRUCTION" entry, because disjunction is almost invariably simpler, faster, and easier than the methods listed.
That epic level wizard should feel proud of himself. He destroyed an evil artifact, which is (or at least, should be) the end of the campaign. Rejoice at saving the world/universe/metaverse and start a new campaign.
Five seconds are up, you wanted to look up it's proper method of destruction in a book.. the children are all now dead(un)
Five seconds are up, you wanted to look up it's proper method of destruction in a book.. the children are all now dead(un)
Ah, yes, the ever-so-popular house rule "Real Time D&D". <rolls eyes>
For one thing, the PCs aren't going to disjoin a phylactery unless they already know that it's an artifact (because only by destroying a phylactery do you do any good, and disjunction only suppresses normal magic items), and if they already know, that means they've done research on it and should know what its method of destruction is.
For another thing, any DM who actually does this in a game is a childish jerk.
From the PRD:
You can also use this spell to target a single item. The item gets a Will save at a –5 penalty to avoid being permanently destroyed. Even artifacts are subject to mage's disjunction, though there is only a 1% chance per caster level of actually affecting such powerful items. If successful, the artifact's power unravels, and it is destroyed (with no save). 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. 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.
The salient point, to my perception is "Destroying artifacts is a dangerous business". Anything, IMHO, that attracts the attention of a 'powerful being who has an interest in or connection with' something that was just destroyed means that that something is, at the very least, going to be a bit annoyed. At worst, we're talking "Terminate with extreme prejudice"
My opinion is clear. Were I to use this RAW, we're talking permanent loss of spellcasting, and consider yourself lucky that the will save was wussy.
Anything less, is just uncivilized.
I seem to have opened a can of worms here. Many good points here for both sides. Although it would be nice to see some official clarifications. I think I will just do a DM call and go with what works best for my campaign story line. The Disjunctionified mage is a NPC who became the patron, and eventually love-interest, for my Wife's character. The NPC worked well for pushing the players in the right direction and starting adventure hooks, but has become a bit of a problem with being too powerful. The game started in '92 and the players eventually were being lost due to life and moving away after College. One Summer I decided to run her Solo. It's just easier to have a patron or cohorts when playing a Solo game. Unfortunately this NPC is a bit over-powered being a High level Mage with a few levels of Psion. I think I'll let him keep the Psion powers and just say he went to zero Mana in Wizard(I've been a Vancian-hating Grognard since 1977) and can't ever gain any more.
BTW, He destroyed the Crown of Corruption in the "lich-Queens Beloved" Adventure. The look on my Wife's face was priceless when she realized that the power-player in the battle lost his magic early in the battle:) Soon will come the angst for the Magicaphile that can't cast, but first they need to find the Phylactery. It's been hard running a higher level NPC Wizard in an Epic game without stealing the show. (and I would have to sleep on the couch if I just killed him;) It will be a whole new game.
By all means, do what works for your game. But you did bring upan interesting point. What about Psionic "spellcasting"?
Depends on whether you're using psionics-magic transparency or not. The default is to treat psionics as another form of magic (it's suppressed by antimagic effects, it has to roll against spell resistance, etc, and vice versa), so the default would mean psionics are gone as well.
Which makes me wonder about a related question. What happens if a rogue disjunctions an artifact by using UMD to read a scroll and then fails the save? Clearly, multi-classing into a casting class is a bad idea, but can he still use UMD? He has no actual casting ability, but is quite good at faking it.Very simple. he loses ALL ability to employ the skill Use Magic Device for any purpose whatsover. Same thing for a spellcaster whether he used the spell natively or faked it. If they never had the skill, they lose all ability to make use of it.
Yes, the character has a major problem, but then again he has a few more options than a character that has met permanent unrecoverable death. Most spellcasters who wind up in this condition essentially retire from adventuring altogether. Some may just well suicide.
I'm going to come out and say I think this interpretation is completely 100% wrong. A skill is a skill and is totally separate from spellcasting ability. He knows how to use magical devices that presumably someone else has created. I could see an argument for no more creation of magic items if the character had that capability.
Use magic device is no more spellcasting than perception is.
Yes permanent... just like damage -- permanent until fixed, not "Permanent until the end of time".
I don't think that's significantly in doubt. However, note that the "fix" for permanent loss of spellcasting in this case is far more significant than for recovering hit points. Significant enough to be out of the reach of most PCs.
Even then permanent only affects what you have now, not what you will have then (say after gaining a level in cleric, or bard).
I completely disagree. Imagine, if you will, a mystic theurge who casts a mage's disjunction on an artifact and then blows the Will save. Mage's disjunction causes the loss of all spellcasting. That's "all spellcasting" with no caveat made to limit it to the spellcasting derived from the class that is the source of the mage's disjunction. So I can't really see simply picking up another class, even starting over at 1st level, as being a sufficient remedy for the loss of all spellcasting barring divine intervention in excess of miracle or wish.
I'm going to come out and say I think this interpretation is completely 100% wrong. A skill is a skill and is totally separate from spellcasting ability. He knows how to use magical devices that presumably someone else has created. I could see an argument for no more creation of magic items if the character had that capability.
Use Magic Device is specifically about fooling the magic device into thinking you can cast the spell when you really can't. It should not be significantly affected by mage's disjunction.
There are all sorts of ways to look at this. Here are the most common:
1. Curse from the entity who made the artifact on the person who destroyed it via Mage's Disjunction rather than the one-specific-questy-way. Restoring the person's magic probably requires a pardon from the original entity and at least one quest.
2. Regular mystical backlash, no entities involved. There is a warning label on Mage's Disjunction which states that if you try to disjoin anything artifact level or above, you may burn out your magical ability forever. In other news: Don't lick your toad familiar. Maybe it could be repaired, but it would take something on the level of artifact creation to deal with that sort of damage.
3. Heroic Sacrifice. It's a standard for artifact destruction: One person has to be willing to give up their most prized possession. For a fighter, it's his strength. For a commoner, it's either his life or his child's life. For a mage? Yeah, magical ability really does go in that box. If divine beings are grateful enough, they may get around to fixing it, but it's going to be on a divine schedule.
Now, as for what someone who blew up Vecna's eye and lost all magical ability might do, well, yes, Vecna will be Very Cranky, and there will be umpteen cultists coming after you, but do you think you might be have a little bit of a Leadership bonus? Bragging rights? The only thing people love more than a dead hero is a maimed one, because while you may not be able to summon angels to treat you as a living saint, everyone else can, and it's not like the angels are going to say this is beneath them because you're the dude who blew up Vecna's eye!
Basically, you're at the point where you retire and write your memoirs.
It will be a whole new game.
Yes, yes it will. I applaud your handling there, very good show.
To be clear, this wording certainly /could/ be seen as not taking away spellcasting you don't yet have. So you've - permanently - lost existing spellcasting capability. Those spells are gone. Nothing can bring them back. However, say you're an 18th level spell-less "wizard." If you want to level up again as a wizard, go for it. You're a 19th level character with 1st level spellcasting ability. Awesome. Lucky. You. Not quite how I'd interpret it myself, but certainly no less vaild, I'd think, than my own "you can never cast any spells again" (psion looks nice, or maybe binder*...) reading of the same text.
Edit: Actually, at this point "Monk" might be more thematically appropriate...