Disjunction, and ending it


Rules Questions


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I have always seen the Mage's Disjunction spell as a magical affect that come into play shut down other magic an go away, but leaving lasting affects.

However there is nothing in the book to support that. I understand that with regard to spells they undo spells completely, but for magical items they are only turned them off, so per RAW you should be able to dispel a mage's disjunction. The fact that I have never seen it mentioned in anywhere has made me wonder if others just made the same assumption that I did, or has it just not been mentioned for other reason.

For the sake of anyone wishing to FAQ this the question is "Can you dispel or disjunction Mage's Disjunction?".

edit: heavily edited due to a rules error on my part.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Dispel Magic has instantaneous duration with ongoing effects, so no, its effects can't be dispelled (just like healing spells, or damage from a fireball).

Mage's Disjunction, though... Hmmm.

Technically, it should be dispelable, though its own effect should nuke the dispel as its happening. Disjoining Mage's Disjunction... Yep, I'd allow it, I think. Your disjunction would become the one in effect (so that your spells and items are unaffected).

Nice question.


Chemlak wrote:

Dispel Magic has instantaneous duration with ongoing effects, so no, its effects can't be dispelled (just like healing spells, or damage from a fireball).

Mage's Disjunction, though... Hmmm.

Technically, it should be dispelable, though its own effect should nuke the dispel as its happening. Disjoining Mage's Disjunction... Yep, I'd allow it, I think. Your disjunction would become the one in effect (so that your spells and items are unaffected).

Nice question.

I know with spells it is instant, but for magical items it has a duration. I guess I should edit my post to make that distinction.

Good catch with dispel magic.

edit: It=Disjunction


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't think it does. The duration line of Dispel Magic is instantaneous, not instantaneous (see text). The suppression of magic items has a duration, but the DM itself isn't lingering: it fired off, and suppressed the item's magic. The duration of the suppression isn't because DM is active for those 1d4 rounds.


Chemlak wrote:
I don't think it does. The duration line of Dispel Magic is instantaneous, not instantaneous (see text). The suppression of magic items has a duration, but the DM itself isn't lingering: it fired off, and suppressed the item's magic. The duration of the suppression isn't because DM is active for those 1d4 rounds.

I agree with you. That is why I changed my post and removed references to Dispel Magic already. Unless I forgot to remove some text that is how it should read anyway.

edit: I see that you thought "it" was dispel magic. I have also edited that post. :)


Dot.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Aha! Ze hymn sheet. We now sing from ze same one.

Disjunction appears to be a static area inside which spells and items inside or which are brought inside are suppressed for the duration of the disjunction (regardless of their subsequent movement).

The way I've always pictured disjunction (and dispel, for that matter) is that the magic of the item is "recovering" during the time it's suppressed.

So, if I'm reading this right, the question you're asking is "if an item currently being suppressed by disjunction is removed from the area of the disjunction, can the suppression be removed by dispel magic or disjunction?"

I'm going to go with "no" to dispel magic, but a conditional "maybe" to disjunction. Normally I'd say no, because the recovery is set by the original disjunction, but a case could be made that if the item is in the possession of the caster of the new disjunction, it is no longer suppressed.

I imagine that RAI is "no", but since we're talking about a 9th level spell, Rule 0 has a pretty solid place in adjudicating the effects.


Chemlak wrote:

Aha! Ze hymn sheet. We now sing from ze same one.

Disjunction appears to be a static area inside which spells and items inside or which are brought inside are suppressed for the duration of the disjunction (regardless of their subsequent movement).

The way I've always pictured disjunction (and dispel, for that matter) is that the magic of the item is "recovering" during the time it's suppressed.

No, I am not saying removing it from the area means the disjuction no longer affects it. Once an item fails the save I think the effect stays with the item no matter where it is. I am merely saying that by RAW dispel magic or even another disjunction should be able to get rid of the current disjunction.

The question is whether or not it is RAI. I always assumed disjunction could not be dispelled or disjunctioned, but by the rules I really don't have any support for that. So now I am wondering if I have been wrong all of these years.

If disjunction was an instantaneous spell with lasting effects like dispel magic then the case would be solved, but disjunction is actually an ongoing affect.


I understand what you are talking about wraithstrike and i think that it's a bug that resulted from the changes to the spell from the 3.5 version to the PF version.

Yes the part of mage's disjunction which affects magic items has a duration but the spell itself doesn't have a duration, i think that this happened because, as you might remember, in 3.5 mage's disjunction permanetely removed the magic from magic items thus there was no need for a listed duration in the spell.

Now whether that means that this part of mage's disjunction can be dispelled or not? I am not sure.
I think that it's unintented side effect of the changes in the spell and it's effects really shouldn't be dispel-able but that's my opinion.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

As I see it, Disjunction can't be dispelled. It is not an effect that overlay something on the magical item, it is an effect that remove something from a spell or a magical item.
It temporarily or permanently remove the magic from the items and spells.
Using another effect that temporarily remove the magic don't change that.

To make an example, it is like throwing a large object in a shallow pond. Some or most of the water will be pushed away and it will not reappear instantly even if you remove the object. After a time the pond will refill naturally but using another method that remove water (dispel magic) will not help it refill more speedily.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Seems I'm doing a bang-up job of misunderstanding you, this weekend.

I revert to my first answer, anyway. Disjunction will stop a dispel magic in its tracks, but I might allow a disjunction to be disjoined. RAW, it wouldn't work (disjunction is a spell which would get unravelled by the existing disjunction effect), but I do like the idea of being able to work around it.


leo1925 wrote:

I understand what you are talking about wraithstrike and i think that it's a bug that resulted from the changes to the spell from the 3.5 version to the PF version.

Yes the part of mage's disjunction which affects magic items has a duration but the spell itself doesn't have a duration, i think that this happened because, as you might remember, in 3.5 mage's disjunction permanetely removed the magic from magic items thus there was no need for a listed duration in the spell.

Now whether that means that this part of mage's disjunction can be dispelled or not? I am not sure.
I think that it's unintended side effect of the changes in the spell and it's effects really shouldn't be dispel-able but that's my opinion.

Actually the spell does have a duration(RAW), but it might have been an accident, which is what I think you are getting at.

The intent was likely to make it work like dispel magic which is instantaneous, but still has a lasting affect. <----I think we agree on this. I did FAQ the spell so it can get errata'd if the current writing was not the intent. I am surprised it has not come up before.

PS: To anyone reading this the 3.5 version of mage's disjunction was instantaneous.


So the consensus seems to be that I had it right the first time. ---> Meaning disjuction was not intended to be removed via another spell.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yep.

I suspect that disjunction is meant to be duration: instantaneous (see text), with a "suppresses magic items for 1 round per caster level" etc built into it. As it stands, though, it actually sits on the area for 1 round per caster level, stops all spells in that area, and suppresses magic items brought into it. It's sort of an extreme version of Anti-magic (which might be why the duration exists, now that I think about it).

As for why it hasn't been asked before... 9th level spells don't get much use, in general, so not many people will have had to adjudicate it.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Disjunction, and ending it All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.