Not a fan of Mage's Disjunction. Forcing a player to rewrite his character sheet and recalculate everything could bring the game to a screeching halt for logistics.You must not be talking about Pathfinder's Mage's Disjunction. As written, and as it was mentioned earlier in this very thread, Mage's Disjunction only destroys magic equipment if the will save for a given item comes up as 1, and every magic item gets its own save. Otherwise, duration for the suppression of magic is 1 minute/level, after which, all magic items return to their original functionality.
I am talking about Pathfinder's Mage's Disjunction.
It still forces you to rewrite your sheet. All magic buffs and items are off. That is a lot of annoying logistics. Same reason I don't like Antimagic Zones.
Especially with high level characters who sport 40 odd magic items each.
When I ran high level 3e I had to make a conscious decision not to use Scry-Buff-Teleport 'scry & fry' tactics against the PCs. This was really annoying since in 1e AD&D I did that sort of thing routinely and the PCs could handle it, but Buffing + Ambush in 3e was just too strong. My first 3e campaign went to ca 18th level but wasn't a very happy experience; I made the decision to end future campaigns around 8th-10th level, avoiding issues with high level casters, and did so for years. That worked ok.
With Pathfinder I've run a couple campaigns to 4th level, but I'm now running Curse of the Crimson Throne in PF; currently at 4th and expect it to go to at least 12th level, maybe 13th or 14th - 13th is where the really appalling spells tended to come in in 3e, so I'm a bit nervous. My main worry is that the high level spellcasters in Book 6, in particular a 15th level wizard, have to be run far below their full power not to easily TPK the PCs. There are some in-world reasons given for that, though. The converse worry is that the party Summoner will be able to easily break everything and dominate, although the player has promised to hold back if necessary, he doesn't want to overshadow the other PCs (Bard & Ranger, currently).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"When the President does it, that means it is not illegal." - Richard Nixon
And we all know what happened to that guy. He was ousted just like any GM with that mindset would be. :)
It depends. Some of my players want me to be ruthless. For them, pretty much no spell is off the table, though their application ought to be carefully measured so as to seem fair and reasonable under the circumstances. For instance, a party who has been chasing down a wizard known for having a fondness for making his enemies "disappear from existence" should not be surprised if somebody gets disintegrated.
On the other hand, I have players who would see the save-or-die nature of such a situation a cheap shot and an empty end to the game.
So this is yet another topic that gets firmly placed for me into the GM-know-thy-players file.
|
It depends. Some of my players want me to be ruthless. For them, pretty much no spell is off the table, though their application ought to be carefully measured so as to seem fair and reasonable under the circumstances. For instance, a party who has been chasing down a wizard known for having a fondness for making his enemies "disappear from existence" should not be surprised if somebody gets disintegrated.
On the other hand, I have players who would see the save-or-die nature of such a situation a cheap shot and an empty end to the game.
In that case, they get to think of themselves as Tasha Yar...meaning they can shock everyone by showing up later in an eerie new form! Clearly, when said wizard makes his enemies "disappear from existence," all that really means is that they're sent to a different existence....
@Democratus: totally agree, different tables different fun, but also think about it as moderation being the key. Dominating once in a while is good, and can lead to good character dilemna, but if you do it all the time, it can be annoying.
The ONLY one that immediately comes to mind... would be wish. honestly so much of that spell has always been about the DM screwing with the Intentions vs. the wording... that having an NPC use it perfect would be pretty unfair. ;)
I avoid SoD before raising from the dead is easily available. especially without some warning to the character so they have the option to take mitigation steps. (They usually don't, but then it's on them.)
I also tend to avoid spells that would make me have to take over handling the PC, like dominate. Now if the maturity level of the players is high enough so I can still let them play it, then it is much more acceptable. "Your current companions are apparently trying to kill your best friend over there wearing the mask. what are you going to do about it?" They guys I play with now will have fun going with it. getting in the way. Trying to grapple. Spells to incapacitate both sides. Etc...
My previous group. "Uhmm... Well they probably wouldn't without a good reason. So I don't do anything. Oh, I have to do something? Ok, my wizard will attack the barbarian with his dagger."
Not a fan of Mage's Disjunction. Forcing a player to rewrite his character sheet and recalculate everything could bring the game to a screeching halt for logistics.You must not be talking about Pathfinder's Mage's Disjunction. As written, and as it was mentioned earlier in this very thread, Mage's Disjunction only destroys magic equipment if the will save for a given item comes up as 1, and every magic item gets its own save. Otherwise, duration for the suppression of magic is 1 minute/level, after which, all magic items return to their original functionality.
You know, I never even noticed it had changed. Thanks for pointing it out to me.
Not a fan of Mage's Disjunction. Forcing a player to rewrite his character sheet and recalculate everything could bring the game to a screeching halt for logistics.You must not be talking about Pathfinder's Mage's Disjunction. As written, and as it was mentioned earlier in this very thread, Mage's Disjunction only destroys magic equipment if the will save for a given item comes up as 1, and every magic item gets its own save. Otherwise, duration for the suppression of magic is 1 minute/level, after which, all magic items return to their original functionality.I am talking about Pathfinder's Mage's Disjunction.
It still forces you to rewrite your sheet. All magic buffs and items are off. That is a lot of annoying logistics. Same reason I don't like Antimagic Zones.
Especially with high level characters who sport 40 odd magic items each.
Do you rewrite your sheet for every temporary buff or debuff that occurs in every situation? BTW, you don't have slots enough for 40 worn magic items.
Do you rewrite your sheet for every temporary buff or debuff that occurs in every situation? BTW, you don't have slots enough for 40 worn magic items.Not a fan of Mage's Disjunction. Forcing a player to rewrite his character sheet and recalculate everything could bring the game to a screeching halt for logistics.You must not be talking about Pathfinder's Mage's Disjunction. As written, and as it was mentioned earlier in this very thread, Mage's Disjunction only destroys magic equipment if the will save for a given item comes up as 1, and every magic item gets its own save. Otherwise, duration for the suppression of magic is 1 minute/level, after which, all magic items return to their original functionality.I am talking about Pathfinder's Mage's Disjunction.
It still forces you to rewrite your sheet. All magic buffs and items are off. That is a lot of annoying logistics. Same reason I don't like Antimagic Zones.
Especially with high level characters who sport 40 odd magic items each.
No because most other penalties and debuffs aren't as all encompassing as
"ALL YOUR MAGIC ITEMS ARE TURNED OFF. ALL BUFFS DISPELLED."
Also, slotless wondrous items mate.
The sheet difference between a high level character with magic items and buffs, and one who doesn't have magic items and buffs are huge.
|
I agree with Kydeem on dominate. It can be a bad spell to use if only because a lot of players can't handle it well, and purposefully misinterpret commands or the like. If you're told to kill a member of your party, you should be trying to do so with the same effort you'd try to kill any other enemy.
I got to do this in PFS the other day. I dominated the high-level ranger in a mostly lower-level party, and he gets a look of abject horror on his face and looks at the rest of the table.
"I am so, so, sorry."
|
I'd be very hesitant to have a bad guy cast disjunction and destroy all of a group's magic items - at high levels, a lot of your power comes from magic, and that seems too mean to just destroy them all.
Other than that, not much is out of bounds to me. I wouldn't let a wish do more than I normally would, and by the time a villain can cast that they're mostly at GM-fiat levels of power anyway.
Other than that, I can't think of anything that I'd avoid. Maybe effects that prohibit resurrection, like a disintegrate that's likely to kill its target.
A player wouldn't hesitate to use this spell against their enemies... why should a GM not counter it or use the same spell?
Except disjunction doesn't destroy magic items anymore...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Destroying 5% of magic items is hardly scorching the earth if it gets you a solid tactical advantage.
That's like saying no one would drink potions because it uses loot, or that no one casts wish because it is too expensive.
I tend to operate on a "play fair" policy. I won't use dickish tactics against my players as long as they refrain from doing the same against my NPCs. And I have a lot more NPCs than they have PCs.
For example, if they decided to try "scry and fry" against an enemy (and I'd still debate whether it works), they have just given me free reign to drop several great red wyrms, a demon lord or two, and some high-powered NPCs on them using the same tactic. Possibly simultaneously, since the realisation of what a threat the PCs are might (depending on the plot) make them team up.
There are no spells I consider off-limits to me as GM, but the plot I'm running might mean that some spells won't improve the enjoyment of everyone at the table, so I'll avoid them.
Except, a player totally WOULD avoid using it against their enemies, since it can destroy their soon-to-be loot.A player wouldn't hesitate to use this spell against their enemies... why should a GM not counter it or use the same spell?I'd be very hesitant to have a bad guy cast disjunction and destroy all of a group's magic items - at high levels, a lot of your power comes from magic, and that seems too mean to just destroy them all.
Other than that, not much is out of bounds to me. I wouldn't let a wish do more than I normally would, and by the time a villain can cast that they're mostly at GM-fiat levels of power anyway.
Other than that, I can't think of anything that I'd avoid. Maybe effects that prohibit resurrection, like a disintegrate that's likely to kill its target.
Um, what? If I'm trying to stay alive, loot's the last thing I'm thinking about unless I'm the greediest bastard in Golarion. How meta do your players play?
And really, unless you metagame the heck out of your NPCs, then they wouldn't use disjuction either, for the exact same reason a player wouldn't: destroying a large portion (majority?) of your own power is not something most characters want to do. From a purely metagame perspective, of course, disjuction is a smart spell for an NPC who you expect to die in one encounter to use...because you know the NPC is about to die and has no need for magic items. But if the NPC knew that, they would be running/teleporting away, not casting disjunctions.
Again, not neutralizing your opponent "because loots" is metagaming, not the alternative. If I can neutralize the opponent with a single spell, I'm going to do it barring a good reason not to.
A player wouldn't hesitate to use this spell against their enemies... why should a GM not counter it or use the same spell?I'd be very hesitant to have a bad guy cast disjunction and destroy all of a group's magic items - at high levels, a lot of your power comes from magic, and that seems too mean to just destroy them all.
Other than that, not much is out of bounds to me. I wouldn't let a wish do more than I normally would, and by the time a villain can cast that they're mostly at GM-fiat levels of power anyway.
Other than that, I can't think of anything that I'd avoid. Maybe effects that prohibit resurrection, like a disintegrate that's likely to kill its target.
Because not every game is GM vs PCs?
Because not every game is GM vs PCs?A player wouldn't hesitate to use this spell against their enemies... why should a GM not counter it or use the same spell?I'd be very hesitant to have a bad guy cast disjunction and destroy all of a group's magic items - at high levels, a lot of your power comes from magic, and that seems too mean to just destroy them all.
Other than that, not much is out of bounds to me. I wouldn't let a wish do more than I normally would, and by the time a villain can cast that they're mostly at GM-fiat levels of power anyway.
Other than that, I can't think of anything that I'd avoid. Maybe effects that prohibit resurrection, like a disintegrate that's likely to kill its target.
It's not a question of GM vs PC, it's a question of PC vs NPC. If the PCs are going to use tactics that give them an advantage, the NPCs will strike back with similar tactics. I like to challenge my players, not give them free rein over the table.
