|
When an item is destroyed by Mage's Disjunction, by rolling a natural 1, what does this mean exactly? My interpretation was it was simply a way to differentiate between items that were having their magic suppressed and those that have had their magic completely removed. Others in one of my group believe it means the item crumbles to dust or is otherwise physically destroyed as well. I can see how it would be interpreted that way from the wording.
To me this later ruling would seem very odd for an abjuration which otherwise does no physical damage. So what do you think? If I have a +5 Shield that gets "destroyed" by Mage's Disjunction am I holding a MW shield or is there a pile of dust on the floor? or something else entirely.
|
When an item is destroyed by Mage's Disjunction, by rolling a natural 1, what does this mean exactly? My interpretation was it was simply a way to differentiate between items that were having their magic suppressed and those that have had their magic completely removed. Others in one of my group believe it means the item crumbles to dust or is otherwise physically destroyed as well. I can see how it would be interpreted that way from the wording.
To me this later ruling would seem very odd for an abjuration which otherwise does no physical damage. So what do you think? If I have a +5 Shield that gets "destroyed" by Mage's Disjunction am I holding a MW shield or is there a pile of dust on the floor? or something else entirely.
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 unraveled and destroyed completely (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 for the duration of this spell. An item in a creature's possession uses its own Will save bonus or its possessor's Will save bonus, whichever is higher. If an item's saving throw results in a natural 1 on the die, the item is destroyed instead of being suppressed.
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.
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 wording is a bit all over the map here, but I think the opinion of your group is the right one in this instance. The first paragraph makes a point to distinguish between being 'suppressed' (turned into a bunk normal item) and 'destroyed' (which presumably is much worse than being a normal item, because of the botched save). Still a bit in the gray area because 'unraveled and destroyed' seems like it could apply to only the spell or spell effect from the first para's wording, but then we get to artifacts: 'If successful, the artifact's power unravels, and it is destroyed' Here, the 'unraveling' of the spell effect is explicitly stated as a distinct effect from the 'destruction' of the item itself.
|
|
My interpretation is that when it says destroyed instead of being suppressed it is referring to the results on a failed save that is not a natural 1 - where the item is suppressed.
Why then would an artifact (which is generally a very, very powerful magic item) be destroyed (the 1% per level chance seeming to function in place of the chance of the artifact rolling a 1 on its save) when disjointed when a lesser magic item would not?