D&D 3E/3.5 Disintegrate 3.5 -- help me track down misconception

[EricNoah]

Spellcasters in one of my games have been under the misapprehension for some time that 3.5 disintegrate deals 1d6 damage per level on a successful save. I showed them last night that it's a fixed 5d6 dmg on a successful save and they were all surprised, even the DM. Granted we're playing 3.0 with only a few 3.5 inclusions. I'm wondering if you can help me track down where they might have come up with that incorrect notion (some piece of errata, etc.)? It's just driving me buggy. Thanks!

 

[FireLance]

From every other spell that does half damage on a successful save? Just my guess, of course.

 

[Thanee]

2d6/level divided by 2 (reading Fort partial as Fort half)?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Plane Sailing]

Simultaneous mental revolt at the idea that you have to roll to hit, AND they get a fort save to reduce the damage to basically nothing AND an average wiz won't even be able to kill a typical fighter of his level with it if he fails the ST (12th level NPC fighter 94hp, 12 level wizard disintegrate does ave 7*12 = 84 damage... and on 24d6 you are going to be darn near that average!)

I'm in the process of discussions with my DM at the moment about the disintegrate spell - whether to move it back to the old save or die (after all clerics still get destruction, and they don't even have to hit with that!) or to make it half damage on a save or something similar.

Doesn't help you really, I've never heard anyone online suggest half damage on a save.

 

[Greatwyrm]

Maybe it was just a house rule everybody thought was correct. It sounded right to me at first. Then again, I don't play mages all that often.

 

[Epametheus]

Plane Sailing -- I think the Disintegrate damage change was due to it working on objects, which includes non-golem constructs and corporeal undead.

Both of those have miserable fort saves, making Disintegrate a swift way to deal with anything in those categories that aren't outright immune to it (like the nightshade creatures).

 

[dcollins]

I'm wondering if you can help me track down where they might have come up with that incorrect notion (some piece of errata, etc.)?

Well, here's the WOTC web page that first floated the idea for changing the spell in Epic-level games, somewhat similar: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ei/20030105a

Disintegrate: On a failed save, this spell deals 20d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage per caster level, with no upper limit to its damage. If this damage reduces the target to 0 or fewer hit points, the target is disintegrated, as described in the spell.

 

[Gizzard]

Tangent:
Tangent:
Tangent:

Simultaneous mental revolt at the idea that you have to roll to hit, AND they get a fort save to reduce the damage to basically nothing AND an average wiz won't even be able to kill a typical fighter ...

Well, these cases tend to not overlap that much:

If you are shooting at a typical fighter you barely have to bother rolling to hit since his touch AC is probably 11 and you have a BAB+6 to start with. If you have a decent DEX or take Weapon Focus (Ray) then you only need to avoid rolling a 1.

OTOH, if you have to actually worry about rolling to hit (facing someone with serious DEX or deflection AC) then they often have a sucky Fort save and so few HPs that you are guaranteed to kill them. (And then take their loot.)

Disintegrate was the first draft choice for both the Wizard and Sorcerer IMC, it doesn't need to be powered up. Destruction is an unfair comparison since it's 7th level instead of 6th and because it is Close Range only. And it can't be used for carving through doors or walls or floors...