Item Saves for Mordenkainen's [Archive] - Wizards Community

Item Saves for Mordenkainen's [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
KingMarl
03-20-07, 09:14 AM The description of Mordenkainen's Disjunction (or Mage's Disjunction, if you prefer), says that a held item uses its save bonus or the wielder's save bonus, whichever is better.

I had a player arguing that this means the item uses its save bonus (2 + CL/2, where CL = 3xEnhancement Bonus) or the wielder's base save bonus, without adjustments.

My thought was if a character's using his save bonus, it would be the whole shebang, i.e. base Will save plus Wis bonus plus any other bonuses (Cloak of Resistance, for example). This makes Disjunction really foul for fighters, for example, who have mediocre Will saves but can make up for it with items and feats. That 17th level fighter with a +3 sword would face either his +5 bonus or the sword's +6 bonus against a spell with a minimum DC of 23 (10 + spell level + 4 [19 min Int for 9th-level spells]) - and any caster worth his salt has a better than 19 Int by 17th level.

Anyone know of a specific rule reference for this?

If you see a trend in a lot of my questions, it's no coincidence. I have a player in my campaign who also runs a campaign, and he's a "screw the players" sort of DM - if there's a way to interpret a rule to the bane of the characters, that's the way he'll want to use it.
Witch
03-20-07, 09:16 AM No specific rule reference is necessary. The owner gets his entire save, not just his base save.
KingMarl
03-20-07, 10:20 AM No specific rule reference is necessary.

Ah, would that it were so.

I'm getting closer these days to sounding like a parent. "It's my campaign, and I say so, therefore it works that way."

(I'm getting tired of whiny arguments from people who, I think, just like to rules lawyer instead of play the game, and don't know the rules as well as they think they do.)
Frugal
03-20-07, 11:28 AM If it says save bonus it means the whole shebang. It'd have to explicitly state something else (like character's base save, or unmodified save) if it meant something other than the whole save.
Witch
03-20-07, 11:30 AM I don't have a clue why anyone would think it's just the base save bonus. Do you only use your base save bonus against a Finger of Death as well, because it doesn't specifically say you should use the full save bonus?
Lord Nedd
03-20-07, 12:48 PM I don't have a clue why anyone would think it's just the base save bonus. Do you only use your base save bonus against a Finger of Death as well, because it doesn't specifically say you should use the full save bonus?

Your item gets your full bonus or its full bonus, as it would where you casting a lesser disjunction spell such as dispel magic. A partial save modifier isn't explicitly stated in the wording of the spell, hence we fall back to non-exception status for M's disjunction even though it is a 9th level spell.

I kind of figure that the player was the one casting the disjunction and had an alterior motive in mind, that being the dissolution of said magic item.

People invested often have a hard time following the logic chain especially if it isn't in their interest.
KingMarl
03-20-07, 02:55 PM I kind of figure that the player was the one casting the disjunction and had an alterior motive in mind, that being the dissolution of said magic item.

People invested often have a hard time following the logic chain especially if it isn't in their interest.

Actually he was neither the person saving nor the person casting. I think he's just looking for justification for nuking PCs in the campaign that he runs by making the same arguments in my campaign. He'd also claimed that item saves were merely the enhancement bonus until we looked THAT up too. Argh.

Okay, grumbling done.
Lord Nedd
03-20-07, 03:10 PM Actually he was neither the person saving nor the person casting. I think he's just looking for justification for nuking PCs in the campaign that he runs by making the same arguments in my campaign. He'd also claimed that item saves were merely the enhancement bonus until we looked THAT up too. Argh.

Okay, grumbling done.

I am sorry. It sounds like he feels out of control in his campaign. It can be a delicate balance between the players and the GM on many fronts. Sometimes there can be a struggle on exactly who is driving the story (plot driven campaigns vs character driven campaigns, for example). It never benefits anyone for the DM to be antagonistic with the players. Even in a Horror Campaign (where the DM can be at her most antagonistic), there is never an excuse to hose on the players. A game must stay fun.

-LN
Nom
03-20-07, 05:18 PM PH chapter 9: "An attended item either makes saving throws as its owner ...". Not using its owner's BSB (compare familiars in chapter 3), but as its owner.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
KingMarl 03-20-07, 09:14 AM	The description of Mordenkainen's Disjunction (or Mage's Disjunction, if you prefer), says that a held item uses its save bonus or the wielder's save bonus, whichever is better. I had a player arguing that this means the item uses its save bonus (2 + CL/2, where CL = 3xEnhancement Bonus) or the wielder's base save bonus, without adjustments. My thought was if a character's using his save bonus, it would be the whole shebang, i.e. base Will save plus Wis bonus plus any other bonuses (Cloak of Resistance, for example). This makes Disjunction really foul for fighters, for example, who have mediocre Will saves but can make up for it with items and feats. That 17th level fighter with a +3 sword would face either his +5 bonus or the sword's +6 bonus against a spell with a minimum DC of 23 (10 + spell level + 4 [19 min Int for 9th-level spells]) - and any caster worth his salt has a better than 19 Int by 17th level. Anyone know of a specific rule reference for this? If you see a trend in a lot of my questions, it's no coincidence. I have a player in my campaign who also runs a campaign, and he's a "screw the players" sort of DM - if there's a way to interpret a rule to the bane of the characters, that's the way he'll want to use it.
Witch 03-20-07, 09:16 AM	No specific rule reference is necessary. The owner gets his entire save, not just his base save.
KingMarl 03-20-07, 10:20 AM	No specific rule reference is necessary. Ah, would that it were so. I'm getting closer these days to sounding like a parent. "It's my campaign, and I say so, therefore it works that way." (I'm getting tired of whiny arguments from people who, I think, just like to rules lawyer instead of play the game, and don't know the rules as well as they think they do.)
Frugal 03-20-07, 11:28 AM	If it says save bonus it means the whole shebang. It'd have to explicitly state something else (like character's base save, or unmodified save) if it meant something other than the whole save.
Witch 03-20-07, 11:30 AM	I don't have a clue why anyone would think it's just the base save bonus. Do you only use your base save bonus against a Finger of Death as well, because it doesn't specifically say you should use the full save bonus?
Lord Nedd 03-20-07, 12:48 PM	I don't have a clue why anyone would think it's just the base save bonus. Do you only use your base save bonus against a Finger of Death as well, because it doesn't specifically say you should use the full save bonus? Your item gets your full bonus or its full bonus, as it would where you casting a lesser disjunction spell such as dispel magic. A partial save modifier isn't explicitly stated in the wording of the spell, hence we fall back to non-exception status for M's disjunction even though it is a 9th level spell. I kind of figure that the player was the one casting the disjunction and had an alterior motive in mind, that being the dissolution of said magic item. People invested often have a hard time following the logic chain especially if it isn't in their interest.
KingMarl 03-20-07, 02:55 PM	I kind of figure that the player was the one casting the disjunction and had an alterior motive in mind, that being the dissolution of said magic item. People invested often have a hard time following the logic chain especially if it isn't in their interest. Actually he was neither the person saving nor the person casting. I think he's just looking for justification for nuking PCs in the campaign that he runs by making the same arguments in my campaign. He'd also claimed that item saves were merely the enhancement bonus until we looked THAT up too. Argh. Okay, grumbling done.
Lord Nedd 03-20-07, 03:10 PM	Actually he was neither the person saving nor the person casting. I think he's just looking for justification for nuking PCs in the campaign that he runs by making the same arguments in my campaign. He'd also claimed that item saves were merely the enhancement bonus until we looked THAT up too. Argh. Okay, grumbling done. I am sorry. It sounds like he feels out of control in his campaign. It can be a delicate balance between the players and the GM on many fronts. Sometimes there can be a struggle on exactly who is driving the story (plot driven campaigns vs character driven campaigns, for example). It never benefits anyone for the DM to be antagonistic with the players. Even in a Horror Campaign (where the DM can be at her most antagonistic), there is never an excuse to hose on the players. A game must stay fun. -LN
Nom 03-20-07, 05:18 PM	PH chapter 9: "An attended item either makes saving throws as its owner ...". Not using its owner's BSB (compare familiars in chapter 3), but as its owner.