Is there any way to fix an item that's permanently disjoined with MDJ?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


I would allow a wish or miracle to do it, but only for non-artifact items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's certainly the kind of thing wishes and miracles do in similar situations.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I say that you should first try the spell make whole and its greater version. Wish and miracle would be over kill and expensive.

Make Whole


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think a normal wish or miracle would cut it for the targeted effect or a nat 1 on the save when not targested since disjunction specifies that the magic item is permanently destroyed in those cases. And using any spell to un-disjoin magic items affected by the aoe effect is unneccessary unless you really need it, since the aoe's duration is 1 minute per level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Usually, when permanent effects can be undone by the wish spell, it says so in the spell description.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The card from the Deck of Many Things that allows a situation to be undone could manage it.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
OmniMage wrote:

I say that you should first try the spell make whole and its greater version. Wish and miracle would be over kill and expensive.

Make Whole

Especially considering that the Disjoined item is merely destroyed... which Make Whole explicitly fixes...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RainOfSteel wrote:
The card from the Deck of Many Things that allows a situation to be undone could manage it.

If you managed to draw Fates, you'd really prefer to use it as a "get out of being exodiated free" card, not to retrieve some mere possession. Unless it was an artifact. Then the disjoiner is probably headed for Not Nice Places.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sandslice wrote:
If you managed to draw Fates,

I was thinking of whether it would work more than whether it would be worthwhile.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RainOfSteel wrote:
Sandslice wrote:
If you managed to draw Fates,
I was thinking of whether it would work more than whether it would be worthwhile.

If the item were disjoined while in the character's possession, arguably yes:

"Avoid any situation you choose, once... This card enables the character to avoid even an instantaneous occurrence if so desired, for the fabric of reality is unraveled and respun. Note that it does not enable something to happen. It can only stop something from happening or reverse a past occurrence. The reversal is only for the character who drew the card; other party members may have to endure the situation."

On the other hand, it might be ruled to not extend to one's possessions where it says "the reversal is only for the character." So the argument for no can be made as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe Polymorph Any Object can restore the item, if enough pieces are left [GM's call].

A Vestige Sorcerer should also be able to restore non-artifact items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only way for an Item to be permanently disjoined by MDJ is with a 1 roll on the item's Will Save-- RAW, there are no actual ways to reverse this -- the only thing that happens on a failed save (other than a critical failure) is that the item becomes suppressed for the duration.

So if you DO allow for an item that rolled a 1 on its save to become re-created, this is not RAW and you're being a very generous GM to even allow it, but I would say Wish/Miracle would be the only ways to do it. Any lesser spells would simply fail.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryze Kuja wrote:
The only way for an Item to be permanently disjoined by MDJ is with a 1 roll on the item's Will Save-- RAW, there are no actual ways to reverse this -- the only thing that happens on a failed save (other than a critical failure) is that the item becomes suppressed for the duration.

That's... only true of the AoE option. There's also a single target option, wherein the targeted item must save at -5 or be destroyed outright.

Quote:
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.


Yeah I forgot about single target. Still, there's no RAW way to reverse it. I still think that allowing a Wish/Miracle to restore it is being generous.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryze Kuja wrote:
Yeah I forgot about single target. Still, there's no RAW way to reverse it. I still think that allowing a Wish/Miracle to restore it is being generous.

No RAW way?

It's only destroyed. Make Whole explicitly fixes magic items with the destroyed condition and restores magical properties if you have a high enough CL.

Unless you are arguing that "Permanently Destroyed" is a different keyword than "Destroyed". Destroyed is a defined game term, Permanently Destroyed is not. Regular old Destroyed is normally permanent as well. Permanently in this case I think is just a hold over from 3.5 as a linguistic choice. The wording of the first couple sentences is almost exactly the same until the Pathfinder version mentions spell duration. 3.5's was instantaneous and did not destroy magic items at all, just transformed them into normal items. Artifacts were potentially destroyed though.


I don't think a level 2 spell should thwart the effects of a level 9 spell-- I would argue that "Permanently Destroyed" in level 9 is vastly superior to "Destroyed" in level 2.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

By RAW, it does. However, it's likely that the high level items you really care about are going to be out of reach due to the double CL requirement.


Sandslice wrote:
By RAW, it does. However, it's likely that the high level items you really care about are going to be out of reach due to the double CL requirement.

I would argue that Permanently Destroyed is a specific rule that supercedes the general rule of Destroyed <---- which Make Whole affects.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Shield(level 1) blocks a Maximized Empowered Dazing Magic Missile(level 9). Why would this be any different?

Power Word Blind has only a single use, make one thing blind as a 7th level spell with no save. It is fixed by a level 3 spell Remove Blindness/Deafness.

A level 2 spell, Litanty of Defense makes you immune to fear, which blocks Weird a level 9 spell.
Amusingly, it looks like Suppress Charms and Compulsions(2nd level, concentration version) would suppress any Power Word spells during the concentration. Specifically, Power Word: Kill is a compulsion and 9th level.

There are dozens of example, but most are because they make you immune to (or fix) a condition and the high level spell merely applies a condition.


When I think of Make Whole, I think of it as Greater Mending, if that makes sense. Like, if your magical weapon becomes sundered and destroyed, or if you roll a 1 with an already broken magic item with the Fragile property, then it becomes destroyed. You have to have all the shattered pieces together, and then Make Whole not only puts the shattered pieces back together and restores its hit points, but also restores the item in such a way that it keeps its magical properties. When I think of Mage's Disjunction, it doesn't break the magic sword into 7 pieces or cause any actual HP damage, it permanently disjoins the magical properties from it, and it's now a Masterwork Sword with no HP damage. It's still a Masterwork sword, but it's no longer magical-- and it's permanent-- you'd have to re-enchant it at that point.

I don't think this is something that Make Whole was meant to fix, tbh. I think there would need to be a specific rule somewhere in MDJ that says "spells like Make Whole can restore the magical properties of items that have been permanently disjoined" or something to that effect.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryze Kuja wrote:

When I think of Make Whole, I think of it as Greater Mending, if that makes sense. Like, if your magical weapon becomes sundered and destroyed, or if you roll a 1 with an already broken magic item with the Fragile property, then it becomes destroyed. You have to have all the shattered pieces together, and then Make Whole not only puts the shattered pieces back together and restores its hit points, but also restores the item in such a way that it keeps its magical properties. When I think of Mage's Disjunction, it doesn't break the magic sword into 7 pieces or cause any actual HP damage, it permanently disjoins the magical properties from it, and it's now a Masterwork Sword with no HP damage. It's still a Masterwork sword, but it's no longer magical-- and it's permanent-- you'd have to re-enchant it at that point.

I don't think this is something that Make Whole was meant to fix, tbh. I think there would need to be a specific rule somewhere in MDJ that says "spells like Make Whole can restore the magical properties of items that have been permanently disjoined" or something to that effect.

Fluff vs RAW.... RAW says Make Whole works....


TxSam88 wrote:
Ryze Kuja wrote:

When I think of Make Whole, I think of it as Greater Mending, if that makes sense. Like, if your magical weapon becomes sundered and destroyed, or if you roll a 1 with an already broken magic item with the Fragile property, then it becomes destroyed. You have to have all the shattered pieces together, and then Make Whole not only puts the shattered pieces back together and restores its hit points, but also restores the item in such a way that it keeps its magical properties. When I think of Mage's Disjunction, it doesn't break the magic sword into 7 pieces or cause any actual HP damage, it permanently disjoins the magical properties from it, and it's now a Masterwork Sword with no HP damage. It's still a Masterwork sword, but it's no longer magical-- and it's permanent-- you'd have to re-enchant it at that point.

I don't think this is something that Make Whole was meant to fix, tbh. I think there would need to be a specific rule somewhere in MDJ that says "spells like Make Whole can restore the magical properties of items that have been permanently disjoined" or something to that effect.

Fluff vs RAW.... RAW says Make Whole works....

Welp, Mage's Disjunction is based on Mordenkainen's Disjunction, and the original intention of the spell in 3E was that the item is stripped of all magical properties and reduced to a mundane item. Nothing can repair it. There's a reason that most tables have banned it.

Paizo made no effort to enumerate any specific rules within the spell for acceptable counters to it, so, take that as you will.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryze Kuja wrote:

When I think of Mage's Disjunction, it doesn't break the magic sword into 7 pieces or cause any actual HP damage, it permanently disjoins the magical properties from it, and it's now a Masterwork Sword with no HP damage. It's still a Masterwork sword, but it's no longer magical-- and it's permanent-- you'd have to re-enchant it at that point.

I don't think this is something that Make Whole was meant to fix, tbh. I think there would need to be a specific rule somewhere in MDJ that says "spells like Make Whole can restore the magical properties of items that have been permanently disjoined" or something to that effect.

Pathfinder Mage's Disjunction (from AoN) is a very much neutered version of 3.5 Mage's Disjunction (from the SRD).

3.5 Disjunction:
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.

PF Disjunction:
Bolded important differences from 3.5 version
Mage's Disjunction
School abjuration; Level arcanist 9, psychic 9, sorcerer 9, wizard 9
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V
Effect
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Area all magical effects and magic items within a 40-ft. radius burst, or one magic item (see text)
Duration [/b]1 minute/level[/b]
Saving Throw Will negates (object); Spell Resistance no
Description
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.

Pathfinder Disjunction destroys the magic item (in some cases) instead of stripping away the magic. And when it only 'strips the magic away' (suppressed keyword in this context), its temporary (duration of Disjunction, min/level). 3.5 Disjunction only strips the magic away from magic items (and because it has no duration, its permanent) and has a chance to destroy artifacts.

Rereading it, I think you are extending the 'artifacts abilities can't be recovered' to all magic items. The sentence before and the sentence after that are specific to artifacts, so it is still only talking about artifacts not being able to be recovered. This is the same in both versions and I think it is a stylistic choice to make artifacts different instead of just 'powerful magic items'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can't be recovered is the caster if an artifact is destroyed.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sandslice wrote:
Can't be recovered is the caster if an artifact is destroyed.

Fair, I was just trying to find a way to justify Ryze Kuja's opinion. So misreading on the misreading?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mordenkainen's Disjunction discussion from 2003 <----- please read this, because I think you'll understand where I'm coming from.

Mordenkainen's Disjunction was so broken it was affecting WBL, and that's why DM's banned it, because the disjoined items were unrecoverable even with Wish. The DM's who didn't ban it were essentially "forced" to give the PC's massive amounts of wealth to make up for the magic items that were reduced to mundane items, OR, Homebrew that Wish could undo it, OR, their players would end up with not enough WBL to stay on par with = CR encounters. And all three were "less than ideal", it just made more sense to Ban MDJ entirely.

It was a campaign breaker. It was essentially a Nuclear Bomb/EMP for spells and magic items, and anything that didn't make an insanely high Will Save was Permanently Disjoined forever. Not only did the entire area get purged of any spells with no check whatsoever, but all your buffs got sheared off you, and the next 30 minutes of Sesh was spent rolling d20's with much Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth as 30-70% of your magic items failed their individual Will Saves.

And the verbiage from 3E --> 3.5E --> Pathfinder never changed with respect to recovering the items that were Permanently Disjoined. The one thing that Paizo did that was really good regarding the balance of this spell was to take out the "Nuclear Bomb- everything that doesn't make its Will Save is Permanently Disjoined" portion of it, and turn this Permanent Disjunction effect into a Targeted version or "if your item rolls a 1 on the Will Save" for the AoE version.

I think if you're going to allow a spell to counter this, it should be Wish/Miracle, BUT, I don't feel that the DM is under any such burden to do so either.

Going against a high level mage should be absolutely terrifying. And I think Paizo hit this nail right on the head by turning the Nuclear Bomb into a Targeted Single Item or AoE Nat 1 on Will Save. This keeps the spell still scary and ferocious as Hell, while not completely breaking a campaign either.

TLDR: There's no way I'd ever let lvl 2 Make Whole counter this spell; doing so would essentially castrate the ferocity of this spell. It would take the fear of God out of your players when facing a high level mage.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryze Kuja wrote:
And the verbiage from 3E --> 3.5E --> Pathfinder never changed with respect to recovering the items that were Permanently Disjoined. The one thing that Paizo did that was really good regarding the balance of this spell was to take out the "Nuclear Bomb- everything that doesn't make its Will Save is Permanently Disjoined" portion of it, and turn this Permanent Disjunction effect into a Targeted version or "if your item rolls a 1 on the Will Save" for the AoE version.

Except it's not the only thing they changed. In fact, recovering items is not talked about at all in either version as I was corrected earlier. So with no specific rules, so we follow the general rule of destroyed items.

3.5 Disjoined was: item becomes a normal item.
PF Disjoined is: item becomes destroyed.

We have PF RAW ways to fix destroyed items. We even have ways to restore the magical properties of destroyed magic items. Both of these solutions are PF Make Whole. 3.5 Make Whole didn't restore magical properties, and only affected broken items, not destroyed. So there are 3 reasons Make Whole didn't work on Disjoined items in 3.5. Wasn't Destroyed, Make Whole doesn't affect Destroyed, and doesn't restore magic.

Ryze Kuja wrote:
Mordenkainen's Disjunction discussion from 2003 <----- please read this, because I think you'll understand where I'm coming from.

As far as your linked thread from 2003 goes(which I did read)... PF core rulebook and the PF version of Disjunction was released in 2009. So it's all its talk about permanently turning off magic items was fixed in the core release of the game. Your linked thread is either misfiled as PF material when it should be 3.5 or talking about the campaign worlds of Pathfinder and Starfinder using the 3.5 ruleset, not the PF rules.

That thread doesn't even talk about recovering items from Disjunction. Going further, I'd even argue that 3.5 version of Wish can 'recover' disjoined items... at a hefty cost as it has rules under the "Create a magic item, or add to the powers of an existing magic item." clause. Each Wish would be a single item though, so it gets expe(rience)nsive fast.

You may dislike that a 2nd level spell can help you recover from a 9th level spell, but I already gave you two examples of a 2nd level spell that makes you immune to a 9th that you haven't contested. Do you have an issue with Death Ward(4th) countering Energy Drain(9th) or a Channel Negative Energy from a 20th level cleric? How close in spell level do they need to be before you think it's 'fair'?

Here is one further: Protection from Evil(1st) vs Dominate Monster(9th). Not only does it grant an additional save if cast after the Dominate, but makes you immune if cast first.

Ryze Kuja wrote:

Mordenkainen's Disjunction was so broken it was affecting WBL, and that's why DM's banned it, because the disjoined items were unrecoverable even with Wish.

...
TLDR: There's no way I'd ever let lvl 2 Make Whole counter this spell; doing so would essentially castrate the ferocity of this spell. It would take the fear of God out of your players when facing a high level mage.

TLDR: They were unrecoverable... because they gained a condition(turned to normal item) that didn't have a (cheap) counter. Disjunction, Make Whole and Wish were changed significantly in PF. PF Destroyed has an easy to acquire counter. And low level spells routinely counter higher level spells in PF. Heck, you can ready to counterspell Disjunction with a simple Dispel Magic if you wanted.

PF already took the teeth out of Disjunction whether you like it or not.


Firebug, I get where you're coming from, but the entire Internet disagrees with you. There are plenty of people who talk about this spell on multiple forums and they all say the same thing: Items permanently destroyed by MDJ are unrecoverable.

Specific rule of Permanently Destroyed > General rule of Destroyed

The "Permanently Destroyed = Unrecoverable" mechanic was the same mechanic in Mordenkainen's Disjunction in 3E, it was the same mechanic in 3.5E Mage's Disjunction, and Paizo made no change to this mechanic in their own version of Mage's Disjunction when they launched Pathfinder either. Paizo only changed the "Nuclear Bomb" portion of MDJ to "Destroyed only on AoE Nat 1 on Will Save or Single Target w/ -5 Will" and gave it a 1min/lvl duration for items that don't save, and that's it. Paizo did not change the Permanently Destroyed = Unrecoverable mechanic of this spell.

Make Whole affects "Destroyed" objects, not "Permanently Destroyed" objects. If Make Whole was meant to fix Permanently Destroyed objects, then it needs to say so in the spell description as a specific rule.


Segue: I ruled MDJ to remove all active spells and suppress all permanent magic items in the area for the duration. No save but you can spend 1 standard action reawakening an item.
You can use MDJ to target 1 creature to force saves or have their items destroyed, merely suppressed on a successful save.

This was done mostly to save a lot of time wasted rolling saves: taking a 5+ minute break in the middle of combat to roll saves and recalculate stats was getting tiring. Now you need only have a 'normal magic' version of stats and a 'non-magical' version for MDJ and AMF.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryze Kuja wrote:
Firebug, I get where you're coming from, but the entire Internet disagrees with you. There are plenty of people who talk about this spell on multiple forums and they all say the same thing: Items permanently destroyed by MDJ are unrecoverable.

And the Earth was once considered the center of the Universe by the majority of humanity. Large numbers of people can be large amounts of wrong. Besides, your single example of 'the entire internet' was from 6 years before this game existed and wasn't even on the same topic (didn't mention recovering items at all).

Ryze Kuja wrote:

Specific rule of Permanently Destroyed > General rule of Destroyed

...
Make Whole affects "Destroyed" objects, not "Permanently Destroyed" objects. If Make Whole was meant to fix Permanently Destroyed objects, then it needs to say so in the spell description as a specific rule.

If you are quoting a specific rule, please quote where "Permanently Destroyed" is ever defined or is different from "Destroyed". We both seem to agree we have a definition of Destroyed.

How about "Permanent" anything? In every example I could find of "permanent" in PF it is only permanent until another game element acts on it and changes it. Curses, Ability Drain, Negative Levels, Blindness/Deafness, etc. Or they explicitly say they cannot be recovered by any mortal magic... which implies Deities can make it non-permanent anyway...
In a game where the forces of the universe bend to the whims of a high level wizard, why would permanence have any meaning?

Ryze Kuja wrote:
The "Permanently Destroyed = Unrecoverable" mechanic was the same mechanic in Mordenkainen's Disjunction in 3E, it was the same mechanic in 3.5E Mage's Disjunction, and Paizo made no change to this mechanic in their own version of Mage's Disjunction when they launched Pathfinder either.

You keep saying that. But it's not. You are conflating "turned into a normal item" with "destroyed". Not even "Permanently Destroyed" in the same location of text, but regular old destroyed.

To clarify, PF Disjunction on the AoE only mentions regular destroyed on a Natural 1 save. Are you conceding that Make Whole works to repair and restore the magic AoE disjoined?

Go back to the 3.5 Disjunction and search for "Permanent". It only mentions "Permanent" in two places. "Permanent magic items" and you "permanently lose all spellcasting abilities. (which can't be recovered by mortal magic)". "Permanently Destroyed" in only mentioned in the Single Target version of PF Disjunction which 3.5 even doesn't have. So it is a Pathfinder addition and can't be based on 3.5 Disjunction. And then that condition is not defined in PF, which means we use the rules text we do have, "destroyed", and "permanently" is relegated to descriptive fluff text.

Let's go back to 3.5 and pull an example of unrecoverable and compare what the immediate effects of disjunction are in combat.

Let's say you have Full Plate +2 and get 3.5 Disjunctioned and the armor becomes a normal (albeit masterwork) item. Can you then re-enchant the armor to be +2 again using Craft Magical Arms and Armor? Why not? Or is it "permanently normal". Does your entire internet agree? What about if someone used Wish to make the Armor +2 from masterwork? I explained how Wish was also different in 3.5 and has the ability to enchant items. Even in 3.5, Disjunction was never 'unrecoverable'.

Flipping this example back to PF, the Full Plate +2 is PF Disjunctioned(single target) and the armor falls apart. it does not turn into a masterwork suit of armor, it is now a pile of metal fragments and leather straps on the ground and provides no armor. Because it is destroyed which is completely different from 3.5.


Ryze Kuja wrote:
Firebug, I get where you're coming from, but the entire Internet disagrees with you.

Based on this thread alone, that is clearly untrue (there appear to be more people outright disagreeing with your interpretation and I am one of them) and does not exactly help move people to your side of the argument because it shows a clear disinterest in arguing honestly on the basis of a thread that dates to half a decade before the core rules of the game we're discussing were published.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Is there any way to fix an item that's permanently disjoined with MDJ? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion