# Dispel Magic



## senna (Apr 1, 2008)

New Design and Development:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080328

Dispel magic in 3rd Edition: 125 lines of text 
Dispel magic in 4th Edition: 10 lines of text

Behold, the power of editing!

Creating such a concise version of the wizard spell dispel magic was more than a matter of wielding our red pens and cutting away. In many ways, D&D 4th Edition has involved rebuilding the game from the ground up, and dispel magic needed to be reconceived alongside the rest of the game system. The new edition's dispel magic was developed during the process of editing the Player's Handbook.

To begin with, the number of magical effects that might be dispellable had narrowed since 3rd Edition. Most arcane powers and divine powers -- called spells and prayers respectively -- create effects that are instantaneous or that last for 1 round, so the days of having numerous spells that last for many minutes or hours are over. Instantaneous and 1-round magical effects aren't intended to be dispellable, which left us considering the game's persistent magical effects. Most of the persistent spells and prayers in 4th Edition last no more than one encounter. Rituals can create magical effects that last for hours, days, or years, but it would take more than a spell or a prayer to dispel the effects of most rituals. Similarly, magic items -- which are created by rituals -- are designed so that their magic can't normally be suppressed by a spell or a prayer.

With these things in mind, we focused our attention on the spells and the prayers that create magical effects that last longer than 1 round. Some of those powers grant bonuses to or impose penalties on a target, but like 1-round effects, they aren't intended to be dispellable, and the game provides other ways of counteracting them. 

So with all of these magical effects in the new edition that dispel magic wasn't intended to apply to, what purpose could it serve? To destroy magical effects created by powers and persisting in the environment, whatever their power source.

When the editors received the classes and powers chapter of the Player's Handbook, we found a number of familiar spells like Bigby's grasping hands, spells that conjure forth things made of magical energy. We also found persistent areas of effect, such as the cleric's blade barrier and the paladin's righteous inferno, which could be sustained for many rounds. Over the course of a few conversations with the development team -- okay, more than a few -- we settled on two keywords to describe these powers: conjurations and zones.

Conjurations create objects or creatures out of magical energy and are often movable. The wizard's Bigby spells and the cleric's spiritual weapon are examples of powers that have the conjuration keyword. Zones are areas of effect that persist for several rounds. For example, the cleric's consecrated ground and the wizard's stinking cloud have the zone keyword. Conjurations and zones allow their users to add new elements to an encounter or to reshape a battlefield in their favor.

With the definitions of conjurations and zones in place, the role of dispel magic became clear. Useful for dispelling persistent effects: check. Useful across power sources, as defined by keywords: check. It doesn't matter whether an effect is the creation of a wizard or a warlock spell or a cleric or a paladin prayer -- if it's a conjuration or a zone, it can be dispelled. Good news for PCs caught in an enemy warlock's tendrils of Thuban!

DISPEL MAGIC 
Wizard Utility 6
You unleash a ray of crackling arcane energy that destroys a magical effect created by an opponent.
Daily * Arcane
Standard Action Ranged 10
Target: One conjuration or zone
Attack: Intelligence vs. the Will defense of the creator of the conjuration or the zone
Hit: The conjuration or the zone is destroyed. All its effects end, including those that normally last until a target saves.

Edit: Used Lord Sessadore better formated version!!


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Apr 1, 2008)

Bah!  Minutes, minutes late!

Here's the power description, though:

DISPEL MAGIC      
Wizard Utility 6
_You unleash a ray of crackling arcane energy that destroys a magical effect created by an opponent._
Daily * Arcane
Standard Action Ranged 10
Target: One conjuration or zone
Attack: Intelligence vs. the Will defense of the creator of the conjuration or the zone
Hit: The conjuration or the zone is destroyed.  All its effects end, including those that normally last until a target saves.​


----------



## Spatula (Apr 1, 2008)

Cute bit with the logo on the article.


----------



## DandD (Apr 1, 2008)

If most of those powers description is so short, I wonder if they'll be able to enhance them all with more pictures, now that they got more room free. 

Probably not, but one can dream...


----------



## baberg (Apr 1, 2008)

Concise, to the point, and simple.  I like it.

Daily, though?  I'd expect it to be encounter at worst, since the enemy could potentially just refresh the conjuration or zone after it's been dispelled.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 1, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> Concise, to the point, and simple.  I like it.
> 
> Daily, though?  I'd expect it to be encounter at worst, since the enemy could potentially just refresh the conjuration or zone after it's been dispelled.




Agreed, seems a bit steep for a daily. Then again, we'll have to see how prevalent zones and conjurations are at higher levels. They certainly aren't a factor with the 1st level pregens we've seen.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 1, 2008)

Hehe, that is nice. Yay! for developers having fun.

I wonder though if other magical classes that aren't Arcane will gain something similar.

Also, that creates a nice visual, I am tempted to make a rule for it, so that really large zones of magic. It only eats up a pocket of it, so you got like a pocket of non-magic in a swarm of it...

Though probably only do this, if there is a like a very-weak at-will Dispel Magic in paragon or epic.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 1, 2008)

Btw, while its always great to get new 4e stuff, they picked a terrible time to do it. With April Fools Day but a few hours away, I wonder how many will think its a trick


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Apr 1, 2008)

Wow, there's actually quite a few nuggets in there.  

- Wizards still get the Bigby's X hand spells and stinking cloud.
- Clerics still get blade barrier and spiritual weapon. 
- Paladins get a "righteous inferno" prayer.
- Warlocks get something called "tendrils of Thuban" (similar to Evard's black tentacles??)


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 1, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Agreed, seems a bit steep for a daily. Then again, we'll have to see how prevalent zones and conjurations are at higher levels. They certainly aren't a factor with the 1st level pregens we've seen.




This is also a level 6 one, it could be replaced by a per-encounter or at-will one at higher levels.


----------



## nnanji (Apr 1, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> Concise, to the point, and simple.  I like it.
> 
> Daily, though?  I'd expect it to be encounter at worst, since the enemy could potentially just refresh the conjuration or zone after it's been dispelled.





Unless the powers that create them are themselves dailies. Actually, that wouldn't really matter, since the enemy casters are likely to be dead at the end of the fight. I imagine the true purpose of making it a daily is so that every encounter isn't "wiped clean" by the wizard. 

What are the implications of the new Dispel Magic for counterspelling?


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 1, 2008)

point 1. Damn, that's a bit of a nerf.
point 2. Yay for universal mechanics


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 1, 2008)

I guess we will also have something like
*
Counter Spell   Wizard Utility
Daily + Arcane, Implement
Immediate Interrupt Ranged* 10
*Target:* One creature casting an arcane spell
*Attack:* Intelligence vs. Will
*Hit:* The target's spell fails.


----------



## vagabonvoid (Apr 1, 2008)

A bit off topic, but, did anyone else notice Mailee the elf in the art....  I hope this isn't a confirmation of her being an iconic in 4E...


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Apr 1, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> Concise, to the point, and simple.  I like it.
> 
> Daily, though?  I'd expect it to be encounter at worst, since the enemy could potentially just refresh the conjuration or zone after it's been dispelled.



I'm not surprised to see it as Daily, honestly.  Greater invisibility, fly, resistance, and Bigby's grasping hands are all dailies.  To me, in comparison to what we've seen so far, "conjuration" and "zone" effects sound like dailies, for the most part.  So dispel magic is pretty powerful - you can basically destroy someone else's daily power.


----------



## baberg (Apr 1, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> This is also a level 6 one, it could be replaced by a per-encounter or at-will one at higher levels.



You could be right, but looking at some of the D&D Mini RPG stats (particularly this one) we have a level 9 wizard with the ability:

_Area: Shard Storm; Burst 2; range 20; +11 vs Ref; 1d10+4 (half on miss). Area becomes difficult terrain 1 round, then 1d10+4 automatic to creatures in or adjacent to area. Recharge 3_

Now I know there was some discussion on what "Recharge 3" meant - if it recharges on a 3 exactly or on a 3 or higher (personally I think it's 3 exactly) - but still, if we're talking about combat that lasts 10ish rounds odds are this guy's going to be able to recharge and re-use the Shard Storm ability.  Odds are, if he opens with that to keep his enemies at range, he's going to be able to re-use it by the middle of the combat (if he's not dead already - only 48 HP).  

Still... "Trust in WotC" I guess.  But Daily definitely seems like a long time for the Dispel Magic ability.


----------



## mhensley (Apr 1, 2008)

Yay, no more dispelling magic traps.  (assuming that there will still be magic traps)


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Apr 1, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> You could be right, but looking at some of the D&D Mini RPG stats (particularly this one) we have a level 9 wizard with the ability:
> 
> _Area: Shard Storm; Burst 2; range 20; +11 vs Ref; 1d10+4 (half on miss). Area becomes difficult terrain 1 round, then 1d10+4 automatic to creatures in or adjacent to area. Recharge 3_
> 
> ...



But that shard storm only lasts for one round.  The article says that such effects are not the target of dispel magic.  Dispel magic targets the type of effects that last a whole encounter - adding a new element, or changing the terrain for the rest of the encounter.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 1, 2008)

*Has narrative brain explosion*

Lord Sessadore's comment on changing the landscape of the battlefield gave me huge brainstorm. I would love to see someone possibly house-rule, a variant rule to this. Where it becomes a longer lasting battle of wills, with the one wizard trying to disperse the magic the other keep the magic going.

It could lead to a real, exciting and tense fight. 

The two wizards on either side of the room, shifting around their arms outstretched as in the centre of the room a pool of pure magic, twists and churns; reshaping then returning to normal the landscape.

Around them the rest of the party and enemies continue to fight, wary of slipping into this vortex of magic.


----------



## baberg (Apr 1, 2008)

Lord Sessadore said:
			
		

> But that shard storm only lasts for one round.  The article says that such effects are not the target of dispel magic.  Dispel magic targets the type of effects that last a whole encounter - adding a new element, or changing the terrain for the rest of the encounter.



I must be reading it differently than you are.  Here's how I read it:

_Shard Storm; Burst 2; range 20; +11 vs Ref; 1d10+4 (half on miss). _
Simple enough, if you're in the area and the wizard hits, you get 1d10+4, otherwise take half.

_Area becomes difficult terrain 1 round_
The burst area becomes difficult terrain for 1 round, then the terrain effect disappears

_then 1d10+4 automatic to creatures in or adjacent to area._
From then on, there's 1d10+4 damage to any creatures in or around the area until the wizard is killed

Again, I could be wrong about my reading of it, but to me it sounds like there's a storm that continues on for a long time.  It's only a D&D Mini card description though, and so it could be completely different from what is generally used in the RPG.  But my initial reading says that this storm continues forever.

Though, now that I think about it, some of the other abilities we know about explicitly state that it requires a minor action to "upkeep" the effect, so maybe your reading is right.  In that case I can see a Daily power being more balanced with that kind of effect.  I guess we'll know more when we have the PHB/DMG/MM in hand.


----------



## Scipio202 (Apr 1, 2008)

(originally posted in the anti-martial thread where this design article got linked)

I think the design article suggests a broader design principle of using the various keywords associated with powers as a way of grouping together game mechanisms either by source or by effect (or other things) and then being able to regulate, define, and limit interactions by tying effects to key words. Seems like a decent balance of making broad effects without necessarily having worry about tons of corner cases. So we may in fact see (eventually) powers that refer to and interact with any of the various keywords.

There also seems to be a power/complexity principle in dividing what should be a power versus what should be a ritual. This makes a lot of sense, since there aren't really casting times any more. It'd probably be way too powerful for a power that takes only a single action (even if it is a 1/day power) to negate the effect of a ritual that takes a lot more time/resources to create.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Apr 1, 2008)

Lord Sessadore said:
			
		

> Wow, there's actually quite a few nuggets in there.
> 
> - Wizards still get the Bigby's X hand spells and stinking cloud.
> - Clerics still get blade barrier and spiritual weapon.
> ...




- Wizards get a utility power at level 6.
- conjurations create ... creatures. Are there some summoning spells in 4e?

We already saw Bigby's grasping hand from the DDXP preview. Looking at that page, all the spells that are conjurations are dailies.


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Apr 1, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> I must be reading it differently than you are.  Here's how I read it:
> 
> _Shard Storm; Burst 2; range 20; +11 vs Ref; 1d10+4 (half on miss). _
> Simple enough, if you're in the area and the wizard hits, you get 1d10+4, otherwise take half.
> ...



Ah, I see.  I was interpreting it as saying the area is difficult terrain for 1 round, and then it does a second (and final) shot of damage.  As in, the storm basically lasts from your turn that you cast it to your next turn, doing damage twice.  

That's what made sense to me, because otherwise you have a monster that can make a shard storm every 36 seconds or so that lasts forever.  I would think that something that powerful would have a longer "recharge" than that, or some other kind of limit.  That limit might just be omitted in the DDM version to save space, though, so either one of us could still be right.  Of course, I'm leaning towards my version


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Apr 1, 2008)

So, is an ongoing effect on a creature a conjuration, or a zone?  It would not seem to meet either definition.  Or is it a 3rd category, and is Dispel Magic ineffective against it?

Ken


----------



## baberg (Apr 1, 2008)

Lord Sessadore said:
			
		

> Ah, I see.  I was interpreting it as saying the area is difficult terrain for 1 round, and then it does a second (and final) shot of damage.  As in, the storm basically lasts from your turn that you cast it to your next turn, doing damage twice.



The more I read it and think about it, the more I think you're correct.  Having a power like that would be just way, way too overpowered.  Storm one side of a room on turn 1, get a lucky Recharge roll, and then Storm the other half of the room on turn 2 to create a field in front of you for 1d10+4 every turn to everybody within range... yeah, way overpowered.  I think you're right in the interpretation of "Damage, 1 round of uneven terrain, a second damage hit, then nothing" makes more sense.


----------



## Scipio202 (Apr 1, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> So, is an ongoing effect on a creature a conjuration, or a zone?  It would not seem to meet either definition.  Or is it a 3rd category, and is Dispel Magic ineffective against it?
> 
> Ken




The article suggested that buffs on a creature/character have some other spell to deal with them (maybe Mordenkainen's Disjunction?), but aren't meant to be dispelled.  Dispel magic appears to be for magical effects that are separate creatures/objects (conjurations) or modifications of terrain/areas (zones).


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 1, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> So, is an ongoing effect on a creature a conjuration, or a zone?  It would not seem to meet either definition.  Or is it a 3rd category, and is Dispel Magic ineffective against it?
> 
> Ken



I think they aren't meant to be dispellable with Dispel Magic.

"With these things in mind, we focused our attention on the spells and the prayers that create magical effects that last longer than 1 round. Some of those powers grant bonuses to or impose penalties on a target, but like 1-round effects, they aren't intended to be dispellable, and the game provides other ways of counteracting them. "


----------



## Sir Brennen (Apr 1, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> The more I read it and think about it, the more I think you're correct.  Having a power like that would be just way, way too overpowered.  Storm one side of a room on turn 1, get a lucky Recharge roll, and then Storm the other half of the room on turn 2 to create a field in front of you for 1d10+4 every turn to everybody within range... yeah, way overpowered.  I think you're right in the interpretation of "Damage, 1 round of uneven terrain, a second damage hit, then nothing" makes more sense.



The keyword "Burst" makes it sound like a sudden explosion of shards to me, not an ongoing effect. The challenge is getting out of the difficult terrain before it explodes in a round.

I wonder if the DDM stats will have zone and conjuration effects tagged as such.


----------



## CoarseDragon (Apr 1, 2008)

Does anyone know what "Ranged 10" might mean in the description? And might that encompass the "zone" size as part of the range?


----------



## hong (Apr 1, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> So, is an ongoing effect on a creature a conjuration, or a zone?  It would not seem to meet either definition.  Or is it a 3rd category, and is Dispel Magic ineffective against it?
> 
> Ken



 A 3rd category, but it looks like buffs have been toned down markedly anyway.


----------



## Nine Hands (Apr 1, 2008)

Oh this is sweet.  Finally smaller, easier to deal with spells.  No more need to read 3 paragraphs of text just to figure out what happens when you make your save


----------



## captaincursor (Apr 1, 2008)

This is the best decision I've seen yet.

I always dread 3.5 dispel when the wizard pulls it out. I signal the rest of the party to go get a drink or use the restroom. 

*roll* 15
nope
*roll* 22
He becomes less... err floaty.
*roll* 17
nope
*roll* 28 woot!
Umm... his boots aren't umm... sparkely anymore
Keep rolling?
Yes
*roll* 19
ugh.....

Awesome. We can quibble about the power balance after we see the rest of the design. I like the design direction on this one.


----------



## Voss (Apr 1, 2008)

Hmm.  
Hmm.
I'm not sure how I feel about this yet.  On the one hand, getting rid of text bloat is good (more text often means more exploits, especially with WotC rules). On the other hand, is this even useful if its this situational?  What spells does it compete with?  

Nice to see some indication that you aren't yanking summoned creatures from somewhere and then just putting them back when you're done exploiting them.  Conjuration seems morally neutral again, even if its... not exactly conjuration anymore.  Evocation is everything!


----------



## Leatherhead (Apr 1, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Yay, no more dispelling magic traps.  (assuming that there will still be magic traps)





I don't understand how this is a bad thing. Isn't 4th edition supposed to let groups share the spotlight a little? Even in 3.x dispelling a magic trap wasn't an ideal situation; you have to make a caster level check and then the trap is only nonoperational for a measly 1d4 rounds. Using a rogue would almost always be superior, unless you were pressed for time.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Apr 1, 2008)

CoarseDragon said:
			
		

> Does anyone know what "Ranged 10" might mean in the description? And might that encompass the "zone" size as part of the range?



Range 10 squares. I'm not sure what you mean by the second question, but my interpretation is if the edge of a zone is within 10 squares of you, you can target it for dispelling, regardless of the zone's size.


----------



## Bishmon (Apr 1, 2008)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/benimoto/2308408982/sizes/o/

Looking at some of the level 10-16 wizard spells, there's three level 15 dailies that are considered conjurations. Doesn't seem too bad for a sixth level utility spell to potentially neutralize a spell 10 levels higher once per day. It'll be interesting to see what the other utility spells are at level 6.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Apr 1, 2008)

Lord Sessadore said:
			
		

> - Warlocks get something called "tendrils of Thuban" (similar to Evard's black tentacles??)



"Thuban"?!? That thounds thilly!


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 1, 2008)

I like it.  Whenever a new bit of 4e crunch is released, I often think to myself "Why did we make it so hard on ourselves in the past?"  Hopefully, it will play as well as I think it will.


----------



## CoarseDragon (Apr 1, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Range 10 squares. I'm not sure what you mean by the second question, but my interpretation is if the edge of a zone is within 10 squares of you, you can target it for dispelling, regardless of the zone's size.




Basically that was my question - how big is the "zone"? Seems to me that an unlimited "zone" size is not quite right. Of course we may get better information when 4th Ed. is actually released.


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Apr 1, 2008)

I don't think I've said it yet, so I'll say it now:

I _love_ the new power formats.  So much smaller, no more "here are the 10 corner cases for this spell that you're going to use every other day of your career".  You skim it over in 10 seconds and you know what it's supposed to do, and how you do it.  

I love it.  And I see no problem with having a utility daily "dispel magic" to deal with conjurations and zones and something else to deal with buffs (say, something to dispel fly or greater invis, those types).  If dispel is going to be daily (and I think it should be, if it's mainly canceling dailies), I'd prefer it this way - that way you don't have all your eggs in one basket.


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Apr 1, 2008)

CoarseDragon said:
			
		

> Basically that was my question - how big is the "zone"? Seems to me that an unlimited "zone" size is not quite right. Of course we may get better information when 4th Ed. is actually released.



I have a feeling that simply by virtue of being a spell/power a "zone" effect will have a limit on its size.  Anything bigger or longer lasting than X or Y is a ritual, not a power.  That way you don't have to worry about, say, dispel only being able to dispel part of a really really big zone.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 1, 2008)

As the Lord sessadore said, the power format is great. Easily digested and not heaps of exceptions and stuff. As long as they are written without any form of ambiguity... it will be hard for the writers to achieve that IMO.
And as has been happening in other threads we need cards for powers, creatures, conditions etc...My character sheet for 4E will be much smaller than previous and I will be using cards for everything. I, for one, would pay if WotC put out some _really_ nice ones- I hope we'll get them free with DDI- but I also hope for a real cool template from some fans.
Anyway I will be using excel or whatever if there is nothing out there to tickle my fancy


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 1, 2008)

Based on their comments about magic items, it looks like _disjunction_ is definitely out of the new system.


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 1, 2008)

If you remember back to some of the older 4e monster design threads, I brought up the point that, without "sourced" bonuses, you lose the tactical flexibility of being able to attack those bonuses.  One of the examples I brought up was the case of fey warriors who get their combat stats through magic.  And indeed, possibly in part because the monster design system doesn't track stat origins, Dispel Magic is a pale shadow of its original self, and an entire chapter of DnD combat tactics is lost.

Btw, that charm, save ends effect on your friend?  Yup, Dispel Magic no worky.  I'm not impressed with boasted about how short a spell description compared to earlier editions, when the new spell has precious little to do with the old one.


----------



## Scipio202 (Apr 1, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> If you remember back to some of the older 4e monster design threads, I brought up the point that, without "sourced" bonuses, you lose the tactical flexibility of being able to attack those bonuses.  One of the examples I brought up was the case of fey warriors who get their combat stats through magic.  And indeed, possibly in part because the monster design system doesn't track stat origins, Dispel Magic is a pale shadow of its original self, and an entire chapter of DnD combat tactics is lost.
> 
> Btw, that charm, save ends effect on your friend?  Yup, Dispel Magic no worky.  I'm not impressed with boasted about how short a spell description compared to earlier editions, when the new spell has precious little to do with the old one.




But you don't have to organize the "counter" powers by (or only by) source.  Since "charm" is a keyword just like "conjuration" and "zone", I wouldn't be surprised if there was a "dispel charm" power that said "end target charm effect".  I think we'll see more, somewhat narrower dispel-type powers.  So casters may need more powers to cancel various effects, this may be offset by the reusability of at-wills and the siloing of combat/non combats, and many effects being rituals instead of powers.


----------



## WyzardWhately (Apr 1, 2008)

I'm not sure this is good enough.  You use your action to MAYBE get rid of one of the enemy's effects, instead of trying to accomplish something on your own.  It takes up one of your power slots to have this ability, and uses a daily to attempt it, and that's if you even get a chance to use it over the course of a day.  That sounds like kind of a bad deal, to me, unless there's a lot of really spectacular zone/conjuration powers running around the game.  Essentially, I think a tool this specialized and limited should be a bit more powerful.

Or, well, maybe the Wizard class gets a lot more dailies, to make up for their crap AC and hit points.  Or something.  I'm just not feeling this one.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Apr 1, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Based on their comments about magic items, it looks like _disjunction_ is definitely out of the new system.




There might be a power called disjunction, but I hope to heaven it isn't what it was in 3rd ed.


----------



## hong (Apr 1, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> If you remember back to some of the older 4e monster design threads, I brought up the point that, without "sourced" bonuses, you lose the tactical flexibility of being able to attack those bonuses.  One of the examples I brought up was the case of fey warriors who get their combat stats through magic.  And indeed, possibly in part because the monster design system doesn't track stat origins, Dispel Magic is a pale shadow of its original self, and an entire chapter of DnD combat tactics is lost.




Losing an entire chapter of tactics that applies to only 1-2 people out of 6 at the table is a feature, not a bug.


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Apr 1, 2008)

WyzardWhately said:
			
		

> I'm not sure this is good enough.  You use your action to MAYBE get rid of one of the enemy's effects, instead of trying to accomplish something on your own.  It takes up one of your power slots to have this ability, and uses a daily to attempt it, and that's if you even get a chance to use it over the course of a day.  That sounds like kind of a bad deal, to me, unless there's a lot of really spectacular zone/conjuration powers running around the game.  Essentially, I think a tool this specialized and limited should be a bit more powerful.



They have said that they're siloing combat and utility powers apart.  So I think it's a bad assumption to think that you'll have to choose dispel magic over your big blasty dailies (ie that your daily slot(s) have to be shared between, say, sleep and prismatic beams and dispel magic).  You'll just have to choose dispel magic over the other wizard utility spells.


----------



## WyzardWhately (Apr 1, 2008)

Lord Sessadore said:
			
		

> They have said that they're siloing combat and utility powers apart.  So I think it's a bad assumption to think that you'll have to choose dispel magic over your big blasty dailies (ie that your daily slot(s) have to be shared between, say, sleep and prismatic beams and dispel magic).  You'll just have to choose dispel magic over the other wizard utility spells.




Even so, I'm a little unsure about the power of a chance of removing an enemy's effect v. putting up one of your own, which if it's a utility power might not even require a check.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 1, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Btw, that charm, save ends effect on your friend?  Yup, Dispel Magic no worky.  I'm not impressed with boasted about how short a spell description compared to earlier editions, when the new spell has precious little to do with the old one.



Don't forget that a 1st-level paladin can grant an additional save once per encounter with Channel Divinity: Divine Mettle, and a 1st-level cleric can grant an additional save once per round if he hits with Sacred Flame. A 6th-level _daily_ power that has a chance of ending an ongoing effect that the target can save against seems under-powered to me. It might work as a 2nd-level encounter power, though.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 1, 2008)

So Dispel Magic can't end Fly, Invisibility, etc. Interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about the very limited scope of it quite yet. Of the level 10-16 spells, I only saw 3 of them that can be negated by dispel Magic.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 1, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> So Dispel Magic can't end Fly, Invisibility, etc. Interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about the very limited scope of it quite yet. Of the level 10-16 spells, I only saw 3 of them that can be negated by dispel Magic.



You're looking in the wrong place.  The relevant question is not "How many wizard spells create conjurations or zones?", but "How many monsters in the Monster Manual have abilities that create conjurations or zones?"

EDIT: And I should add that a quick check with the Monsters & More document shows that there is only one such ability so far: the black dragon's Cloud of Darkness (Zone).


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 1, 2008)

Really, the spell just seems to be "Dispel Conjuration."


----------



## Irda Ranger (Apr 1, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Really, the spell just seems to be "Dispel Conjuration."



That's what I was thinking. The name "Dispel Magic" is now way too broad and misleading.

Of course, D&D already has a word for "Dispel Conjuration": Abjure.  They simply should have called it that as a nod to EGG and left the name as succinct and accurate as the rules.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 1, 2008)

Any sort of "buff dispel" is hugely problematic because the game grinds to a halt while you figure out the new status of various combatants.  Anyway, I think 4e is mostly doing away with combat buff spells, outside of personal defenses and 1-round duration type things.  Without being able to dispel combat buffs or debuffs, most of the reasons to use the old _dispel magic_ in combat are gone, as the article notes.  What remains is getting rid of in-place magical effects.  So it makes sense, even if the comparison to the old spell is somewhat faulty.  "Simplifying" is easy when you ban most of the available options.


----------



## Bishmon (Apr 1, 2008)

I'm not sure how much I like the decreased scope of dispel magic. I might have preferred they just gotten rid of it. Instead it's kind of in this weird area where dispel magic now dispels some magic, but not other magic, for no reason other than a seemingly arbitrary distinction.

But, like with many other 4E things, I'm sure it won't be too much trouble to work into the narrative as long as I don't get hung up on the precise mechanic. I'm not thrilled that's how I find myself looking at some of this stuff, but it is what it is.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Apr 1, 2008)

I just hope that there's a "dispel cantrip" cantrip...


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 1, 2008)

Decidedly unimpressive.  I agree with those who suggest the name now needs changing.

A spell called "Dispel Magic" ought to be something much more powerful...more like a weaker disjunction, that hits an area and does the following:
 - ends all spell effects;
 - interrupts and counters any spells in process of being cast;
 - temporarily de-magics most items;
 - has a chance of permanently disenchanting minor items.

If they want to reduce the amount of magic, there's no better way than by making the anti-magic spells *more* powerful rather than less...

Lanefan


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 1, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> If they want to reduce the amount of magic, there's no better way than by making the anti-magic spells *more* powerful rather than less...
> 
> Lanefan



No, that's the thinking that gave us all of the Golems and spell resistance and Disjunction and Disenchanters and all of ther other anti-magic stuff out there in 3.x. It didn't work, not even close, the 4e idea of balancing effects in the first place allows you to start with a balanced playing field and then add effects on top of that, at which point you don't _need_ arbitrary "get rid of all magic" effects.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 1, 2008)

My only real concern is how much use are you going to see with this spell?

It takes up one of the wizard's precious daily slots, yet I haven't seen many monster effects (from the ones we've seen, which span a decent array of levels) that would be unmade by dispel magic. My biggest question is, are there going to be lots of days when the wizard feels like he wasted a daily slot?


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 1, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Any sort of "buff dispel" is hugely problematic because the game grinds to a halt while you figure out the new status of various combatants.  Anyway, I think 4e is mostly doing away with combat buff spells, outside of personal defenses and 1-round duration type things.




This is exactly the kind of design philosophy in 4th edition that is troubling me. So removing a buff causes the game to grind to a halt while you figure out new statistics, but having buffs last only one round is fine? If buffs being removed really do cause the game to grind to a halt than 4e is going to be a disaster, since almost every buff is removed 1 round later. I'll take the long buffs and dispels any day. At least then when I modify my statistics to account for a buff that information is going to be good for a while.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 1, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> This is exactly the kind of design philosophy in 4th edition that is troubling me. So removing a buff causes the game to grind to a halt while you figure out new statistics, but having buffs last only one round is fine? If buffs being removed really do cause the game to grind to a halt than 4e is going to be a disaster, since almost every buff is removed 1 round later. I'll take the long buffs and dispels any day. At least then when I modify my statistics to account for a buff that information is going to be good for a while.



Adding or removing one buff is fine. Adding or removing three or four, (or more at high levels) is bad. 

I'm more concerned about monster auras and debuffs than Cleric & Paladin one round buffs, altohugh admitadly, the ones that look most fiddly come from Elite monsters with the subtype (Leader), and it's probably a bad idea for other reasons to run multiple Elite Leaders.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Apr 1, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> So Dispel Magic can't end Fly, Invisibility, etc. Interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about the very limited scope of it quite yet. Of the level 10-16 spells, I only saw 3 of them that can be negated by dispel Magic.




I don't think you need a special Dispel power to end those effects; just a stunning attack. Fly, Invisibility, etc. all have "Sustain Minor" in their durations, so if you stun or otherwise disable the spellcaster for one round so he can't take that minor action, the spell ends, I'd think.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 1, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> My only real concern is how much use are you going to see with this spell?
> 
> It takes up one of the wizard's precious daily slots, yet I haven't seen many monster effects (from the ones we've seen, which span a decent array of levels) that would be unmade by dispel magic. My biggest question is, are there going to be lots of days when the wizard feels like he wasted a daily slot?



Maybe you have different slots for utility and attack powers? WotC said you'll never have to choose either water-breathing or fireball. However that could apply only to the power/ritual split only....


----------



## Pale Jackal (Apr 1, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Maybe you have different slots for utility and attack powers? WotC said you'll never have to choose either water-breathing or fireball. However that could apply only to the power/ritual split only....




Since _everyone_ can learn rituals... I'm pretty sure utility and combat powers are seperate.

I like the new Dispel, though Abjure might've been a better name.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 1, 2008)

Pale Jackal said:
			
		

> Since _everyone_ can learn rituals...




Are you sure about this? I'm not aware that this has ever been officially confirmed.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 1, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> This is exactly the kind of design philosophy in 4th edition that is troubling me. So removing a buff causes the game to grind to a halt while you figure out new statistics, but having buffs last only one round is fine? If buffs being removed really do cause the game to grind to a halt than 4e is going to be a disaster, since almost every buff is removed 1 round later. I'll take the long buffs and dispels any day. At least then when I modify my statistics to account for a buff that information is going to be good for a while.



Well, I think that the whole concept of what buffs do in D&D has been changed.  i.e. no more piling on short-term combat bonuses until you're twice as effective as you are unbuffed.  I seem to recall the belt of giant strength (seen at DDXP) could be used to give the wearer a short-duration bonus to a Str-related check, but not to attack or damage... a big change from such items in previous editions.


----------



## Pale Jackal (Apr 1, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Are you sure about this? I'm not aware that this has ever been officially confirmed.




I could be wrong.  Regardless, I don't think there will be a conflict between utility and damage-type powers.


----------



## fnwc (Apr 1, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Based on their comments about magic items, it looks like _disjunction_ is definitely out of the new system.



Good riddance. Mordekainen's Disj... err... _Mage's Disjunction_ is broken beyond all belief.


----------



## Dunamin (Apr 1, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> This is exactly the kind of design philosophy in 4th edition that is troubling me. So removing a buff causes the game to grind to a halt while you figure out new statistics, but having buffs last only one round is fine? If buffs being removed really do cause the game to grind to a halt than 4e is going to be a disaster, since almost every buff is removed 1 round later. I'll take the long buffs and dispels any day. At least then when I modify my statistics to account for a buff that information is going to be good for a while.



My experience is contrary to this. If they have time to prepare, PCs and NPCs sometimes use about 20 rounds to get all their buffs up in 3E. Once they engage, targeted dispels start flying left and right, burdening players and DM alike to spend time reconfiguring stats for multiple vanishing effects at the same time.

Though both 3E and 4E are to my liking from what I've seen, I think 4E does Dispel Magic better. It only removes one effect so adjudicating new stats takes little time, and its a Daily so there won't be an abundance of these instances in combat.

It’s easy to handle single effects coming and going at a time, it’s not easy handling 10 or so changing simultaneously.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 1, 2008)

fnwc said:
			
		

> Good riddance. Mordekainen's Disj... err... _Mage's Disjunction_ is broken beyond all belief.



It is possible, that they repurposed _Mordenkainen's Disjunction_ as a new spell, like a spell not stopping conjurations and zones, but rather all arcane effects or something like that.

Idly speculating, LT.


----------



## med stud (Apr 1, 2008)

I suppose this Dispel magic will be taken if you have some advance knowledge about what opposition you face. It will be interesting to see if daily powers will be tiered as you advance in level; that is, if you can prepare more low level dailies than you can prepare high level ones. In that case, Dispel magic at level 6 can be used to destroy, for example, Bigby's hands at level 15. That seems like a nice trade off to me.

If dailies aren't tiered, I suspect Dispel magic will still be useful but much less so than today. I don't think it will be worthless; Dispel magic is such a central spell that I suspect WotC has put much focus on making it useful.


----------



## thatdarnedbob (Apr 1, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> I'll take the long buffs and dispels any day. At least then when I modify my statistics to account for a buff that information is going to be good for a while.




Did you do much combat over 11th level in 3.5? During my session Sunday, a measly level 12 Cleric NPC had up to 10 buffs on him at a time, and my players were tossing out dispels like candy. I would've had to have a computer program to calculate his exact stats and bonuses at any moment; as it was I guessed and hoped I got within ±5 damage for everything he was giving and taking. If 4E has less of the darn buffs, I will rejoice.


----------



## Snarls-at-Fleas (Apr 1, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> The more I read it and think about it, the more I think you're correct.  Having a power like that would be just way, way too overpowered.  Storm one side of a room on turn 1, get a lucky Recharge roll, and then Storm the other half of the room on turn 2 to create a field in front of you for 1d10+4 every turn to everybody within range... yeah, way overpowered.  I think you're right in the interpretation of "Damage, 1 round of uneven terrain, a second damage hit, then nothing" makes more sense.




And it's waaay easier in terms of bookkeeping. Just imaging having to track areas of a couple such spells for the whole battle. And here we have it simple:
1)Cast a spell - deal damage
2)Till the next wizards turn the area is difficult terrain (wizard's player tracks it telling everyone when needed to double the movement costs)
3)When his turn starts again everyone in area gets damaged again (at the start of turn, before any actions) and the spell ends.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 1, 2008)

First Sight:
Looks like a well designed power - easy to adjudicate, written to the point.

How useful it actually is remains to be seen. They only mentioned PC class powers as examples for conjurations and zones, so we don't know how many monsters will have such abilities. Though they seem to be likely for Leader and Controller type monsters, so it will probably come into play at higher levels in many encounters with spell-casting foes. 

On Buffs: 
I really wondered how the 4E buffs compare to 3E buffs in managability. I noticed a few things: 
- 3E buffs are caster level dependent. Unfortunately, caster level isn't always fixed, and I (and the rest of my group) are often unorganized enough to not having the buff effects prewritten.
- 3E buffs often effect base statistics, which tend to adjust many effects.
- Many 3E buffs often last long enough to hold over at least one combat encounter. This usually means people don't have trouble to know what their statistics are when the buffs are active, but if something ends them, it gets complicated. 
- Long term Buffs tend to be "fire & forget". The caster casts the buff spell, and then doesn't need to track it anymore. The recipient has to track its effect, until the time it is negated/dispelled and he is forced to figure out things like "which buff is on me? Which spell & caster level is it? What exact bonus did it have?"
- Other 3E buffs are only activated during combat (like Inspire Courage).
This all leads to you not having a clear "base" for your statistics. Do you use the pre-buffed stats? Do you use the un-buffed stats, and add up on that?
If I try to prestat all the possibilities, I usually end with a large matrix that doesn't really help at all, since I still have to go to the steps of determining row & column if something changes (which can happen each round). And usually the matrix doesn't cover all effects.

4E buffs - at least the ones I saw so far seem a lot simpler. They last one round, and provide a fixed benefit. Every round, the buffer leader has to decide which buff to apply, and to who, so it's next to guaranteed that everyone knows that he's buffed, and what benefit it grants him. The major benefit here seems to be that the amount of buffs active on each individual character is lower, and there are always two people thinking of the buff, and they only need to remember the information for one round.

Nostalgia for Long Spell Description: 
One thing I liked about D&D (or at least 3E D&D) spells where the obscure and varied spells. I started gaming with Shadowrun, and the spells there are extremely formulaic and offer little room for special effects. A spell like Evards Black Tentacles (a spell made by a specific person?! Wooot!) would look strange - but in a very fascinating and compelling way. Spells that offered multiple effects, had several uses, spells like Mordekainens Faithful Watchdog or Private Sanctum are awesome.
Maybe I'll miss this stuff. But maybe I won't. The "Bigby's" spell are still in, and the effects of these spells might be described short and concise, but the flavor is still a lot stronger then "Manabolt Level 6""Stunbolt Level 5"*, "Trideo Illusion 4" or "Armor 2". 


*) fixed for 3E Shadowrun power-gaming purposes.


----------



## Stogoe (Apr 1, 2008)

Looks like the Swiss Army Win Button is getting less and less overpowered as the previews roll in.

Woohoo!


----------



## OchreJelly (Apr 1, 2008)

Here are a few words I will use to describe how I still think this spell will always be flexible and useful:
Entangle
Bigby's anything
Web
Solid Fog
Evard's Black Tentacles (the 3.5 ones  )
Acid Fog *shudder*


----------



## TerraDave (Apr 1, 2008)

This is why sometimes I _love_ 4E....sometimes...

And thats no joke.


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 1, 2008)

thatdarnedbob said:
			
		

> Did you do much combat over 11th level in 3.5? During my session Sunday, a measly level 12 Cleric NPC had up to 10 buffs on him at a time, and my players were tossing out dispels like candy. I would've had to have a computer program to calculate his exact stats and bonuses at any moment; as it was I guessed and hoped I got within ±5 damage for everything he was giving and taking. If 4E has less of the darn buffs, I will rejoice.




Word. The lvl 11 cleric in my campaign had 23 buffs running last combat. Sigh.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Apr 1, 2008)

OchreJelly said:
			
		

> Here are a few words I will use to describe how I still think this spell will always be flexible and useful:
> Entangle
> Bigby's anything
> Web
> ...



Exactly. 

Remember, the controller role is all about manipulating the battlefield. I think Zones and Conjurations will be the bread and butter of wizards, along with spells which damage multiple enemies a once like Fireball, especially as they go up in levels. Dispel Magic will be a very useful spell still, but not the nearly required one it is today.

As some of the developer's said last year after the announcement, we need to take off the 3E goggles when looking at the new rules. In 3E, the biggest bang for the buck for Dispel Magic was hitting a target that likely has multiple spells on him, whether it's a wizard with everything from Shield to Stoneskin, or a fighter piled on with buffs from the cleric.

In 4E, a spellcaster looks to be able to maintain a single spell on himself at a time comfortably, to a max of three if he does nothing else but just stand there - no attacks, not even movement. Plus, stat boost buffs, the biggest factor in making character's more effectice, are gone. There's simply less need to use Dispel Magic in the same way as it is today in 3E role. Now it's a controller spell, by removing someone else's magic that is influencing the battlefield. I wouldn't even call that a nerf, just a change in focus.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Apr 1, 2008)

TarionzCousin said:
			
		

> "Thuban"?!? That thounds thilly!



Thuban! He's a thobber! And a thapist!


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 1, 2008)

thatdarnedbob said:
			
		

> Did you do much combat over 11th level in 3.5? During my session Sunday, a measly level 12 Cleric NPC had up to 10 buffs on him at a time, and my players were tossing out dispels like candy. I would've had to have a computer program to calculate his exact stats and bonuses at any moment; as it was I guessed and hoped I got within ±5 damage for everything he was giving and taking. If 4E has less of the darn buffs, I will rejoice.



Attached is the Excel sheet I made for tracking buffs in my last high-level 3.5 D&D game. This is not a joke, and is one of the primary reasons I ended up wishing 3.5 into the cornfield.


----------



## frankthedm (Apr 1, 2008)

Ok, they got dispel _right_ for 4E play, even if they got the _concept_ wrong. 

*******************************
Dear 4E Dispel Detractors,

One of the big changes to 4E was that not every party is _expected_ to have caster capable of specific spells anymore. Just like a healer / Cleric is much less needed, so should dispel magic be a ''Nice thing to have sometimes" rather than a "Have it or be screwed" spell that shows up on the majority of spell lists just to make sure the party has it.
*******************************
EDIT







			
				Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> So Dispel Magic can't end Fly, Invisibility, etc. Interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about the very limited scope of it quite yet. Of the level 10-16 spells, I only saw 3 of them that can be negated by dispel Magic.



Though compared to 3rd, most of those don’t need dispelling to be ‘dealt with’. Fly matters less since spell ranges are much shorter and ranged attacks are much better. _”Improved” Invisibility_ still ends if the recipient attacks. And dispelling a "save ends duration" is grossly unfair considering how short those are rigged to be.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 1, 2008)

wizards said:
			
		

> With these things in mind, we focused our attention on the spells and the prayers that create magical effects that last longer than 1 round. Some of those powers grant bonuses to or impose penalties on a target, but like 1-round effects, they aren't intended to be dispellable, and the game *provides other ways of counteracting them*




emphasize mine...

ok, that are important sentences: other powers that negate such things. Maybe an encounter power which disturbs concentration etc...

Also: 

-I believe wizards can have as many dailies as they wish... but can only prepare a certain amount of attacks and utility type dailies when studying their spellbook. So he has flexibility to adjust his daily selection

-mordekainen´s disjunction will hopefully be a ritual. It was the most evil spell in 3.x: fighters had virtually no chance to retain their equipmment against a well buffed wizard. Making a permanent item is a ritual, destroying one should be too.


----------



## kilpatds (Apr 1, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Attached is the Excel sheet I made for tracking buffs in my last high-level 3.5 D&D game. This is not a joke, and is one of the primary reasons I ended up wishing 3.5 into the cornfield.




I worked the buff tracker into the base character sheet...  But it is a bit annoying requiring all the players bring a laptop just to run the sheet.

My excel sheet 

When you have this, tracking Dispel Magic is pretty easy (go along the effect list on the main page, commenting out effects as they are dispelled).  So I'm fine with 3.5's buff fest.  But I understand not everyone has the time to manage a computer program to correctly calculate their numbers.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 1, 2008)

One of the design goals that they seem to be trying to achieve is to remove any effect which grinds the game to a screeching halt.  Whether it be someone with a menagerie of followers/pets or, now, dispel magic.  Pushing the dispel button could mean that you spent the next half an hour trying to work out the actual effect.

Not that this ever happened in your game of course, because, you were all keen and on the ball.  

But, for some poor schlub who isn't quite that shiny, dispel magic killed the momentum of an exciting encounter dead.  And that's bad.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 1, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Not that this ever happened in your game of course, because, you were all keen and on the ball.



You just made my day. Thanks!


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 1, 2008)

I do agree that 3.X dispel was a problem.  Or, more precisely, it was complicated *in circumstances that were already complicated by other effects*.  If you didn't have people megabuffing themselves, dispel posed no problem.  4e *may* have already solved the megabuffage issue (I'm very unconvinced that tons of very short duration buffs is less complicated), which means that dispel in its 3.X concept shouldn't pose any problems (any buffs it drops were already on their way out).  The change to the easy of running dispel in 3.X and 4e *has nothing to do* with the change in the spell itself.

I would greatly appreciate it if the 4e devs start making 3.X/4e comparisons that make sense (frankly, it started feeling dishonest a while back).  3.X dispel was not 120 lines.  3.X dispel was complicated, *but* they "solved" (it had already been solved, elsewhere) that problem by *removing* it, not overhauling it. (4e's dispel is an entirely different beast).

Why shouldn't Dispel hit short duration effects?  Why shouldn't it be able to suppress magic items (save ends, int vs wielder's will OR 10+item's level or some such)?  Why shouldn't it be able to suppress rituals (int vs. caster's will at -5 for extra ritual strength)?  Something like that would be a conversion of Dispel to 4e.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 1, 2008)

i think a minor action encounter power would fit better to remove 1 round effects...


----------



## Surgoshan (Apr 1, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> 4e *may* have already solved the megabuffage issue (I'm very unconvinced that tons of very short duration buffs is less complicated),




Aren't buffs either a one shot deal (I hit this enemy and also buff an ally) that last a round or otherwise effects that require an action to sustain?  Basically, that would mean that you could get at most two buffs per character, with only one of them subject to dispel, right?


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 1, 2008)

Another way to look at it is that it dispels independent, self-sustaining, autonomous effects.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 1, 2008)

Re: dispelling spells that are "save ends."

The cleric has an at will power that lets him damage an enemy and grant one ally in line of sight a new saving throw.  This is available at level 1.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 1, 2008)

Surgoshan said:
			
		

> Aren't buffs either a one shot deal (I hit this enemy and also buff an ally) that last a round or otherwise effects that require an action to sustain?  Basically, that would mean that you could get at most two buffs per character, with only one of them subject to dispel, right?



As far as we know right now, no buffs are subject to dispelling.  And the "max # buffs per character" would be dependant on what classes & races are in the character's group (a 1st level elven cleric can provide 2 bonuses on its own, one from the cleric powers and the other from its racial aura), along with which magic items the character has.  And add on whatever self-buffs the character can provide for himself (_mirror image_, for example).


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 1, 2008)

Multiple buffs that provide a flat bonus to a specific thing I can handle; multiple buffs that cause me to re-calculate huge swaths of my characters abilities, well, I don't want to bother with that anymore.  I especially don't want to re-do it or partially re do-it when those buffs expire or are dispelled during combat.


----------



## ve4grm (Apr 2, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> 3.X dispel was not 120 lines.




You're right.  Including the casting information, it was 140.

Text of the spell alone: 129.

Nope, not 120 at all.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 2, 2008)

ve4grm said:
			
		

> You're right.  Including the casting information, it was 140.
> 
> Text of the spell alone: 129.
> 
> Nope, not 120 at all.




Nice.


----------



## Celebrim (Apr 2, 2008)

This isn't editing.

1) Much of the rules are moved off to an area outside the spell effect (definition of 'conjuration' and 'zone').  Nothing wrong with that, but its the opposite of what they are doing with monsters.

2) The changes to the system give the spell less to do.  Additionally, they made the decision to narrow the spells effect.  For example, you can't use this to prevent a wizard from flying or turning invisible.  

3) The spell has lost much of its versatility.  It no longer can be used to area dispel, counterspell, or supress a magic item.  So yes, with less than 1/3rd the applications of the original spell, it is much shorter.

4) Some of the text of the 3rd edition version is limitations to reduce the potential for such a powerful and useful spell being abusable.  Since the spell has now been nerfed, these limitations are no longer necessary and can be ignored.  

So, yes, its shorter, but I'm not necessarily sure that that is something you should be bragging about.  It's shorter mainly because it does so much less, and not because the same effect is described more cleanly.


----------



## hong (Apr 2, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> So, yes, its shorter, but I'm not necessarily sure that that is something you should be bragging about.  It's shorter mainly because it does so much less, and not because the same effect is described more cleanly.




And yet it is shorter.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 2, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> This isn't editing.
> 
> 1) Much of the rules are moved off to an area outside the spell effect (definition of 'conjuration' and 'zone').  Nothing wrong with that, but its the opposite of what they are doing with monsters.
> 
> ...




Wow, talk about splitting hairs.  Nit pick much?

They took a spell which caused the game to come to a screaming halt whenever it got used beyond a certain level, and turned it into a spell that can be used to great effect, but doesn't make the rest of the group go outside for a smoke.

I dunno about anyone else, but, I'm no longer all that happy about the 20 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours.  Dispel Magic may not have been a prime suspect, but, it certainly was a usual one.


----------



## frankthedm (Apr 2, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Dispel Magic may not have been a prime suspect, but, it certainly was a usual one.



Dispel was one of the few ways to combat the uberbuffed. The fault was not dispel, but the buffs that caused character wide changes, like stat boosts.


----------



## Deep Blue 9000 (Apr 2, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Wow, talk about splitting hairs.  Nit pick much?
> 
> They took a spell which caused the game to come to a screaming halt whenever it got used beyond a certain level, and turned it into a spell that can be used to great effect, but doesn't make the rest of the group go outside for a smoke.
> 
> I dunno about anyone else, but, I'm no longer all that happy about the 20 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours.  Dispel Magic may not have been a prime suspect, but, it certainly was a usual one.




Saying it can be used to great effect is completely unfounded. As a previous poster stated, of all the monsters released, we have only seen a single monster ability that can be dispelled. The evidence we have is that this will be a weak and situational spell.

Perhaps it's for the best. This way every wizard won't be forced to take Dispel Magic. However we should be under no illusions as to what is happening.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 2, 2008)

Another concern I have about dispel magic is that it's a daily power. Most monsters can use their abilities repeatedly thanks to the "recharge" rules. So even if you dispel a Black Dragon's cloud, it can just use it again in a couple of rounds. I think this is more of a problem with "recharging" than it is with dispel magic, though. It's just not fair that monsters get to use powerful spells multiple times per battle while PCs can use them only once.


----------



## hong (Apr 2, 2008)

Deep Blue 9000 said:
			
		

> Saying it can be used to great effect is completely unfounded. As a previous poster stated, of all the monsters released, we have only seen a single monster ability that can be dispelled. The evidence we have is that this will be a weak and situational spell.
> 
> Perhaps it's for the best. This way every wizard won't be forced to take Dispel Magic. However we should be under no illusions as to what is happening.



 ... that they fixed dispel magic?


----------



## Imban (Apr 2, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> ... that they fixed dispel magic?




Like a cat.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 2, 2008)

Deep Blue 9000 said:
			
		

> Saying it can be used to great effect is completely unfounded. As a previous poster stated, of all the monsters released, we have only seen a single monster ability that can be dispelled. The evidence we have is that this will be a weak and situational spell.
> 
> Perhaps it's for the best. This way every wizard won't be forced to take Dispel Magic. However we should be under no illusions as to what is happening.




I would say that it could be used to great effect.  If the combat features one or more of the applicable spells, this automatically gets rid of it.  That only one creature that we've seen so far has abilities that this would apply to is irrelevant.  For one, since this is a 6th level spell, it would be safe to say that few if any creatures below 6th level would have any abilities that this would apply to.  That takes out a fair chunk of the creatures that we have seen.

Add to that the fact that we've seen what, about 5% of the total monsters that are supposed to be in the MM, I'd say that claims that it is a weak situational spell are perhaps less than founded.

Is this going to be THE spell?  Nope.  It's going to be a limited spell that gets used once in a while.  

What it won't be though is a giant speedbump in the middle of your game.


----------



## hong (Apr 2, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> Like a cat.



 It is amazing how many solutions can be found if one simply thinks outside the square.


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 2, 2008)

I like it. It's nerfed and it's cool. I like that they use keywords.


----------



## Imban (Apr 2, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I would say that it could be used to great effect.  If the combat features one or more of the applicable spells, this automatically gets rid of it.




Not automatically; the spell still has to hit the creature that put it up's Will defense.



> Is this going to be THE spell?  Nope.  It's going to be a limited spell that gets used once in a while.
> 
> What it won't be though is a giant speedbump in the middle of your game.




I, for one, *almost* like the new _dispel magic_, because it removes the issues that made the 3e version a horrible time sink. I am of the opinion that it should be able to target buffs like _fly_, _mirror image_, or _greater invisibility_, or debuffs such as _sleep_. I don't see this adding complexity, and I would prefer it because a spell called _dispel magic_ should be able to, well, dispel magic.

I'd also be quite dissatisfied with it if it turns out that _dispel magic_ can dispel totally non-magical effects even in the core. Since currently, it seems as if I will need to rewrite significant chunks of 4e's mechanics in order to make the system something my gaming circle would enjoy, adding "yeah, you can dispel affects too" to _dispel magic_ is just another minor change on the pile.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 2, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I would say that it could be used to great effect.  If the combat features one or more of the applicable spells, this automatically gets rid of it.



Nope.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> That only one creature that we've seen so far has abilities that this would apply to is irrelevant.  For one, since this is a 6th level spell, it would be safe to say that few if any creatures below 6th level would have any abilities that this would apply to.



Well, the one creature we have seen with an affected ability is level 5.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 2, 2008)

Go go useless pedantry.

Ok, it's not automatic.  It still has to get through the save.  Satisfied?

It's like Celebrim complaining that this isn't really "editing".  Meaningless hair splitting that has no real value as a criticism.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 2, 2008)

Actually, there is another ability that could be affected by Dispel Magic: the pit fiend's Infernal Summons (a Conjuration). 



> *Infernal Summons (standard; encounter) • Conjuration*
> The pit fiend summons a group of devil allies. Summoned devils roll initiative to determine when they act in the initiative order and gain a +4 bonus to attack rolls as long as the pit fiend is alive. They remain until they are killed, dismissed by the pit fiend (free action), or the encounter ends. PCs do not earn experience points for killing these summoned creatures. The pit fiend chooses to summon one of the following groups of devils:
> • 8 legion devil legionnaires (level 21), or
> • 2 war devils (level 22), or
> • 1 war devil (level 22) and 4 legion devil legionnaires (level 21)​



Which raises the question: does a Dispel Magic get rid of all summoned creatures within range, or only one?


----------



## hong (Apr 2, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Which raises the question: does a Dispel Magic get rid of all summoned creatures within range, or only one?




Ideally one asks this question in a Clint Eastwood voice, right before casting the spell.


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 2, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Actually, there is another ability that could be affected by Dispel Magic: the pit fiend's Infernal Summons (a Conjuration).
> 
> Which raises the question: does a Dispel Magic get rid of all summoned creatures within range, or only one?



I would say all creatures within range.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 2, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Actually, there is another ability that could be affected by Dispel Magic: the pit fiend's Infernal Summons (a Conjuration).
> 
> Which raises the question: does a Dispel Magic get rid of all summoned creatures within range, or only one?



I just had a deja-vu. Isn't this an age-old discussion with 3E Dispel Magic and Summon Monster? 

I'd say: they all go away. The power is dispelled, right?

Nice effect, and might explain why it is a daily. 
"Dispel Magic: If you really want to ruin a Pit Fiends day"

Edit: 


> Hit: The conjuration or the zone is destroyed. All its effects end, including those that normally last until a target saves.



_All_ effects end. All creatures go away.. By by, Pit Fiend Allies. Be happy, no exploding for you today!


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 2, 2008)

Hussar, you're repeatedly being rude and insulting. Either stop it or leave the thread.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 2, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> ... that they fixed dispel magic?




They could have just removed it from the game. "Fixed."

For getting rid of more "story based" magic effects, just make Dispel Magic a Ritual.

In 3.5 speak, that means increase the casting time to 10 minutes. Fixed!

In fact I like that much better. I'd rather not have Dispel Magic as an "encounter" option at all.


----------



## mhensley (Apr 2, 2008)

Leatherhead said:
			
		

> I don't understand how this is a bad thing. Isn't 4th edition supposed to let groups share the spotlight a little? Even in 3.x dispelling a magic trap wasn't an ideal situation; you have to make a caster level check and then the trap is only nonoperational for a measly 1d4 rounds. Using a rogue would almost always be superior, unless you were pressed for time.




My last group had a pc who could have detect magic on all day and could also dispel magic at will - magic traps were useless. :\


----------



## hong (Apr 2, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> They could have just removed it from the game. "Fixed."
> 
> For getting rid of more "story based" magic effects, just make Dispel Magic a Ritual.
> 
> ...



 It's basically a way of removing persistent encounter effects. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 2, 2008)

Lets think of all the different things there are to dispel.

1. Persistent "zone" effects.  Ie, magical pools of acid, walls of ice, etc.  Solution: Dispel Magic.

2. Summoned monsters and summoned magical effects.  Summoned demons, Bigby's fist.  Solution: Dispel Magic.

3. Debuffs and ongoing magical effects which hurt your allies.  Poison, anything with "save ends."  Solution: Cleric power that grants a new save, other effects which grant or improve saves.

4. Spells as they are cast.  This is your 3e counterspelling.  Solution: Unknown.  Perhaps a spell that's actually called "counterspell."  That would probably save time.

5. Buffing spells active on an enemy.  Invisibility, Mirror Image.  This gets harder.  Some of these require that the caster maintain them with a minor action.  Anything that prevents the caster from using a minor action would end these effects, so you don't necessarily need a spellcaster to pull this off.  A martial attack that stuns the target would probably get the job done.  Others don't require maintenance.  We don't know what ends them, if anything.

There's a general pattern here.  If a spell created something, the spell to make that something go away is Dispel Magic.


----------



## Cyronax (Apr 2, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Actually, there is another ability that could be affected by Dispel Magic: the pit fiend's Infernal Summons (a Conjuration).
> 
> Which raises the question: does a Dispel Magic get rid of all summoned creatures within range, or only one?






I would guess all summoned creatures, though I wonder if a 6th level spell would scale against a pit fiend's magic? In this one case it might point to a higher level version of dispel magic. 

I don't know.

Your revelation gave me mental flashbacks to the World of Greyhawk's Flight of Fiends, an event initiated by the _Crook of Rao_ artifact.


----------



## ve4grm (Apr 2, 2008)

I don't think a higher-level version is even necessary.  The attack roll scales along with the enemy's Will Defense.


----------



## WyzardWhately (Apr 2, 2008)

It's probably underpowered if it only gets rid of one of the summoned creatures.  I'd say it would affect all of them within range, if I had to make a call without other rules to reference.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 2, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> And yet it is shorter.




Hey, I can do that.

Lizards New Super Improved SRD-Based Game
Dispel Magic: This dispels magic.
Fireball: This creates a ball of fire.
Fly: The caster can fly!
Invisibility: The caster can turn himself or someone else invisible.

There you go. The DM decides any specifics or answers any questions. After all, we don't want to slow the game down with lots of fiddly rules.

More seriously, I think this is another example of how constrained the 'design space' of 4e is getting, and how fewer and fewer truly different effects/concepts/etc can be wedged into it. It looks like almost anything interesting is being dumped into a huge bin labelled 'rituals'; virtually all spells/powers/exploits are simplistic variations on a few themes, with complex concepts like 'mirror image' becoming just a special effect for 'ablative AC buff', for example. You can no longer bring down a flying mage with dispel magic (always fun!), remove a ward/sigil, turn off that annoying magic sword, etc.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 2, 2008)

The distinction betweens "always hits" and "has a very real chance of missing" is hardly an academic one, especially in a game where the narriative of combat revolves almost entirely around whether attacks hit or miss.

It might be better if it was automatic, given its situational use and status as a daily power, not to mention the fact that the effects you are removing can possibly be used again in the same fight.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 2, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> More seriously, I think this is another example of how constrained the 'design space' of 4e is getting, and how fewer and fewer truly different effects/concepts/etc can be wedged into it. It looks like almost anything interesting is being dumped into a huge bin labelled 'rituals'; virtually all spells/powers/exploits are simplistic variations on a few themes, with complex concepts like 'mirror image' becoming just a special effect for 'ablative AC buff', for example. You can no longer bring down a flying mage with dispel magic (always fun!), remove a ward/sigil, turn off that annoying magic sword, etc.



Which doesn't mean that there are not alternative ways to reach the same goals.  Sigils & wards would presumably fall under rituals, and we still have no idea how those work, or if there would be a way to undo them.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Apr 2, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Hey, I can do that.
> 
> Lizards New Super Improved SRD-Based Game
> Dispel Magic: This dispels magic.
> ...



Even the original *Dungeons & Dragons* game had more specifics than that!


----------



## maggot (Apr 2, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> They could have just removed it from the game. "Fixed."




And with an even shorter description.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Apr 2, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Ideally one asks this question in a Clint Eastwood voice, right before casting the spell.



hong wins the thread.


----------



## DandD (Apr 2, 2008)

Which either means the original Dungeons & Dragons sucked even more than Lizard's short list (if shorter descriptions mean being better overall), or more probable, Lizard just complained about Dispel Magic in its 4th edition version. 

Notice that I do like the Dispel Magic-ability that the game designers intend to release for 4th edition.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 2, 2008)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Even the original *Dungeons & Dragons* game had more specifics than that!




Barely. 

Here is Invisibility from Men&Magic, P 24:
Invisibility -- A spell which lasts until it is broken by the user or some outside force (remember that as in Chainmail, a character cannot remain invisible and attack). It affects only the person or thing upon whom or which it is cast. Range: 24".


----------



## Ximenes088 (Apr 2, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> More seriously, I think this is another example of how constrained the 'design space' of 4e is getting, and how fewer and fewer truly different effects/concepts/etc can be wedged into it. It looks like almost anything interesting is being dumped into a huge bin labelled 'rituals'; virtually all spells/powers/exploits are simplistic variations on a few themes, with complex concepts like 'mirror image' becoming just a special effect for 'ablative AC buff', for example. You can no longer bring down a flying mage with dispel magic (always fun!), remove a ward/sigil, turn off that annoying magic sword, etc.



Setting aside the whole "we're already sure there's no way to remove a ward?" issue, this design space constraint isn't something I'm seeing. With keyword-based spell interactions, I can create entire new spell schools just by plugging a group of spells into the keyword system.

For example, say I want to make a school of blood wizardry for some villains. Some will be fully statted, others will just have a few relevant spells. I create a new "Blood" keyword, and define it thus; "Using this power subtracts its level in hit points from either the caster or a blood cultist within 10 squares, with no hit roll needed. Cultists or casters dropped below 1 hit point become unconscious or dead as normal after the spell is cast. If the caster draws from a cultist, gain the spell's level in healing. Blood powers gain +2 to all hit rolls and apply a -1 penalty to all saving throws versus their effects." Then I slap it on a bunch of book-standard wizard powers and dole them out to villains, describing the spell effects with suitably gory special effects.

I've just added a brand-new factor to fights just by adding a user-defined keyword. Now PCs have an additional incentive to take out the blood cultists before they go after the wizard, as each spell drawn from a minion heals the caster. They _can_ try to burn down the  caster first, but that will provoke him to throw his biggest spells first for the healing, creating a very gory encounter... which is precisely what I want.

If it's completely new spell effects you're looking for, I can't see how they're harder to do in this model. I can think of a half-dozen new mechanics off the bat:

*Arcane Turbulence:* Roll Int vs Will against one enemy. On a hit, all Arcane sustain minor/move/standard powers require two additional sustaining actions of the same type. On a miss, they require one additional sustaining action. A saving throw ends either effect.
*Chord of Thaumic Unity:* Cast on one willing ally trained in the Arcane skill. Ally gives up one type of action, standard/move/minor. You gain that action for use only to sustain an Arcane power. Spell lasts for one encounter or until the ally ends it as a free action.
*Anathemic Backlash:* Immediate reaction. When someone uses a Divine power within range, roll an Int vs. Will attack. If successful, the power takes a -4 to hit, grants +2 on saving throws, and does 1 point of damage per level to the power's caster.
*Flux Point State:* Immediate reaction. Partially transform into arcane energy for one turn. Martial powers suffer -4 to hit the caster, while Arcane powers gain +2. Cannot move except through power use; immune to forced movement.
*Zone of Twisted Space:* Zone power. Move sustain. Anyone ending up within the zone at the end of their turn may be shifted one square by the caster's discretion.
*Shockwave Rider:* Immediate reaction. When struck by a Blast effect, you may roll Int vs. Reflex against the caster. On a success, you subtract your level from the damage, take no ongoing effects, and are pushed to a square just outside the blast area chosen by you. On a failure, you take normal damage and are pushed as above.

...and that's just with fifteen minutes of contemplation. I find 4e's system more conducive to creativity because it has an explicit and developed framework for interactions between powers.


----------



## Cyronax (Apr 2, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> Setting aside the whole "we're already sure there's no way to remove a ward?" issue, this design space constraint isn't something I'm seeing. With keyword-based spell interactions, I can create entire new spell schools just by plugging a group of spells into the keyword system.
> 
> For example, say I want to make a school of blood wizardry for some villains. Some will be fully statted, others will just have a few relevant spells. I create a new "Blood" keyword, and define it thus; "Using this power subtracts its level in hit points from either the caster or a blood cultist within 10 squares, with no hit roll needed. Cultists or casters dropped below 1 hit point become unconscious or dead as normal after the spell is cast. If the caster draws from a cultist, gain the spell's level in healing. Blood powers gain +2 to all hit rolls and apply a -1 penalty to all saving throws versus their effects." Then I slap it on a bunch of book-standard wizard powers and dole them out to villains, describing the spell effects with suitably gory special effects.
> 
> ...





Great job. I will have to steal this now.

C.I.D.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 2, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> Setting aside the whole "we're already sure there's no way to remove a ward?" issue, this design space constraint isn't something I'm seeing.



 I see it.
The old approach was to find the best way to model what the spell should do.  The new approach appears to be: use this short list of constraints to get in the ballpark.




> I've just added a brand-new factor to fights just by adding a user-defined keyword.



No, you've twiddled one of your degrees of freedom and layered on a different flavor text.



> If it's completely new spell effects you're looking for, I can't see how they're harder to do in this model. I can think of a half-dozen new mechanics off the bat:



But you haven't really made anything new.  You've just tweaked the parameter values.  You are still in the space constraints.


----------



## Dragonblade (Apr 2, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> If it's completely new spell effects you're looking for, I can't see how they're harder to do in this model. I can think of a half-dozen new mechanics off the bat:
> 
> *Arcane Turbulence:* Roll Int vs Will against one enemy. On a hit, all Arcane sustain minor/move/standard powers require two additional sustaining actions of the same type. On a miss, they require one additional sustaining action. A saving throw ends either effect.
> *Chord of Thaumic Unity:* Cast on one willing ally trained in the Arcane skill. Ally gives up one type of action, standard/move/minor. You gain that action for use only to sustain an Arcane power. Spell lasts for one encounter or until the ally ends it as a free action.
> ...




Oooh. Very nice. 



> I find 4e's system more conducive to creativity because it has an explicit and developed framework for interactions between powers.




Agreed.


----------



## Chrysophrase (Apr 2, 2008)

ve4grm said:
			
		

> I don't think a higher-level version is even necessary.  The attack roll scales along with the enemy's Will Defense.





This.

It also gets rid of the 'it's only a 6th level spell and it can dispel the 20th level pit of infernal damnation???!?!" dispute..  Sure it CAN,  but if the caster is only barely 6th level,  the chances have got to be pretty slim...


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Apr 2, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> You can no longer bring down a flying mage with dispel magic (always fun!), remove a ward/sigil, turn off that annoying magic sword, etc.



Bringing down a mage with dispel magic often wasn't worth the trouble, since he floats gently to the ground anyway for reasons that do not even begin to make sense.

Short-term wards and sigils would be zones, making them subject to Dispel Magic.  Long term ones shouldn't be getting dismissed with a standard action, so I don't see a problem here.

Turning off a magic sword?  I know I don't like the wording here, and I don't think I much enjoy the idea, either -- though 4e sounds like the edition where this would be least problematic, actually.


----------



## Chrysophrase (Apr 2, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> *Zone of Twisted Space:* Zone power. Move sustain. Anyone ending up within the zone at the end of their turn may be shifted one square by the caster's discretion.




Careful with your language there,  'Forced Movement' is different that 'Shifting'


----------



## Benimoto (Apr 2, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> More seriously, I think this is another example of how constrained the 'design space' of 4e is getting, and how fewer and fewer truly different effects/concepts/etc can be wedged into it. It looks like almost anything interesting is being dumped into a huge bin labelled 'rituals'; virtually all spells/powers/exploits are simplistic variations on a few themes, with complex concepts like 'mirror image' becoming just a special effect for 'ablative AC buff', for example. You can no longer bring down a flying mage with dispel magic (always fun!), remove a ward/sigil, turn off that annoying magic sword, etc.



As I see it, the "design space" for 4e is larger in some very real ways.  There is a greater variety of types of actions.  There are standard, move, minor, free and immediate actions.  Powers can be daily, encounter or at-will.  Most of the classes (mainly the martial ones) get more powers with only a few (the spellcasters) getting less.  All this points to a wider variety of powers, mostly because there is now a greater variety in the opportunity cost for a power, and so you can design powers at various strengths.

It looks like there's as much, or more interesting effects happening in combat as in any previous edition.  In the page of Wizard spells we say at DDXP, all of the daily powers are widely varied.  I'll grant that the encounter powers mostly followed a formula of damage+effect, but the effects were varied.  As for mirror image, I fully support that change.  Mirror Image just should not have made it into print.  If you go and look at the later pages in the Beholder thread, Mirror Image is cited as basically the number one reason that a defensive wizard has nothing to fear from a Beholder.

I would bet that making non-combat spells into rituals will in fact increase the amount of "interesting" stuff that happens in an adventure.  As an example, I think spells like Hallucinatory Terrain are interesting, but there's no way any Wizard of mine would memorize that in place of a combat spell.  Interesting solutions to out-of-combat problems are great, but combat is life-and-death.

As to Dispel Magic, I like the new version just fine.  In 5-6 years of weekly 3rd edition play, including plenty of games at conventions and in different gaming groups, I've seen Dispel Magic used to counter a spell or remove a magical trap less than 5 times.  I've never seen it used to suppress a magic item.  I appreciate that everybody plays differently, but this version of Dispel Magic looks better for me and I appreciate it.


----------



## Ximenes088 (Apr 2, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I see it.
> The old approach was to find the best way to model what the spell should do.  The new approach appears to be: use this short list of constraints to get in the ballpark.
> ...
> No, you've twiddled one of your degrees of freedom and layered on a different flavor text.
> ...




There's a 3.5 spell that lets you forcibly direct a large group of enemies around in an area? Or one that makes "Concentration" eat up more of your action, or become prohibitively difficult if it's too burdensome an effect? Or lets you ignore the brunt of an explosive effect and be pushed safely to its edge? There may well be such things, but I can't say I've heard of them. These effects are "in the space constraints" in the sense that they don't introduce new resolution subsystems, which earlier editions loved to do. If you require a spell to introduce a new subsystem to be "new", then I'd agree that 4e is discouraging you.

But all right, let's take your challenge on its face. Suppose I've got a tribe of kobolds infected with a form of reptilian elephantiasis- they suffer egregious overgrowth of scales, fangs, horns, claws, and other draconic elements. The deluded tribal shamans believe that this sickness is merely a transformative process that will eventually end in their apotheosis into full-fledged dragons. They've created a number of spells that merge elements of the sickness and their reptilian nature, and I want these powers to feel unique and characteristic to their PC enemies. I want to use the 4e guidelines to make these spells. What are some ideas?

*Breath of the Hatchling*: Caster bites off a mawfull of jagged, tumor-raddled scales from his own body, chews, and breathes out a cloud of infectious blood and scale fragments. Blast effect versus Armor Class for weapon-type damage plus necrotic ongoing until save.
*Promised Flight:* Caster rips two 'wings' of loose scales from the hide of his back and leaps upward convulsively, landing fifteen squares away, ignoring AoOs for the movement, and doing minor weapon-type blast damage around the 'liftoff' area from flying scale fragments.
*Blessing of the Claw:* Caster claws their own pus-filled buboes and dances about, spraying all within the blast radius. On a hit, victim takes necrotic damage and is briefly magically infected and Slowed as scaly, tumorous growths cover them until a save is made. On a miss, victims take the damage but fight off the sorcerous plague.
*Great Wyrm's Molt:* The caster's body begins to swell inside his skin, forcing the crusty mass tighter and tighter until it explodes around the caster in flailing ropes of razor-edged scales and infectious hide, strip after strip bursting loose in a continuous cascade of tissue. Acts as a mobile encounter-duration Zone around the caster, creating difficult terrain for all non-kobolds and doing weapon-type and necrotic damage. When the spell is terminated, the caster is skinned alive and reduced to 0 hit points.

Three of the above effects are instantaneous spells that Dispel Magic never would have worked against in 3.5, not without holding an action to dispel. The fourth is a Zone that seriously changes the battlefield every time some kobold shaman decides that _he_ really _will_ become a great dragon when he casts it, and thus can be an excellent occasion to throw a Dispel. Not only do you take out the zone, but you kill the enemy caster as well. And I can testify that my design concerns with the spells placed flavor first and worried about descriptive mechanics afterwards. 4e provided everything I needed.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 2, 2008)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> As I see it, the "design space" for 4e is larger in some very real ways.



It hasn't changed at all; this is a game of make-believe, and the design space includes whatever ideas you can make up.



			
				Benimoto said:
			
		

> There is a greater variety of types of actions.  There are standard, move, minor, free and immediate actions.



Those actions all exist in 3e (minor is called swift).



			
				Benimoto said:
			
		

> Mirror Image just should not have made it into print.  If you go and look at the later pages in the Beholder thread, Mirror Image is cited as basically the number one reason that a defensive wizard has nothing to fear from a Beholder.



The beholder keeps his anti-magic ray on the wizard and kills the wizard's companions.  Then the beholder eats the wizard, or the wizard runs away.


----------



## Wolv0rine (Apr 2, 2008)

So, they nerfed the living hell out of Dispel Magic, one of THE 'core spells'.  Nice, real nice.  
And what's with the thing the designers seem to have with rays of crackling energy?  Seems to be terribly prevalent.


----------



## Benimoto (Apr 2, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> It hasn't changed at all; this is a game of make-believe, and the design space includes whatever ideas you can make up.



Right, but the difference I was trying to highlight is that there's now more difference in the costs you can give these powers.  You can make up any power you want, but if the cost is too high, nobody will take it.  If the cost is too low, then it will be abused and the game will be less fun.  Since there's greater variety in the costs you can give to powers, there's theoretically greater variation in the amount of viable powers you can make.



			
				Spatula said:
			
		

> Those actions all exist in 3e (minor is called swift).



You're exactly right.  But, they don't exist in the Player's Handbook, or the Monster Manual I-IIIish.  They were added on later in what maybe kind of a design evolution.  What you get with 4th edition is a system that's built with that full variety of actions from the ground up.

You have pseudo-swift actions in the PHB, like quickened spells and maybe Feather Fall.  And you have free actions that maybe should be swift actions, like a Barbarian's rage.  But all of those are described differently.  What the whole "Power of Editing" part of the dispel magic column seemed to be about is they've done a better job of describing similar things consistently, and using keywords like "zones" or "conjurations" that make it much easier to describe spells using less words.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 2, 2008)

4e "enlarges the design space" about the same way the change from 2e to 3e did with reference to saving throws.  Sure, there isn't technically anything you absolutely cannot do in 2e with respect to saves that you can do in 3e.  But gosh are things a lot easier to do in 3e.

Even the decent little changes, like merging touch AC and reflex saves, are excellent little adjustments that make life better for everybody.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Apr 2, 2008)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> So, they nerfed the living hell out of Dispel Magic, one of THE 'core spells'.  Nice, real nice.
> And what's with the thing the designers seem to have with rays of crackling energy?  Seems to be terribly prevalent.




"Nerfing" implies that something was changed because it was too powerful. Since we're practically looking at an entirely different system, I'd say that the term's application has been incorrectly used. We still don't have a bigger picture of how all the mechanics work between the classes, the power balance and how exploits, spells, prayers and rituals function.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 2, 2008)

Moniker said:
			
		

> "Nerfing" implies that something was changed because it was too powerful. Since we're practically looking at an entirely different system, I'd say that the term's application has been incorrectly used.



Agreed. 

This is a brand new effect with a legacy name.


----------



## keterys (Apr 2, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> This is a brand new effect with a legacy name.




Whoa, next you'll try to argue that Eladrin and Archons weren't nerfed.


----------



## hong (Apr 2, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Hey, I can do that.
> 
> Lizards New Super Improved SRD-Based Game
> Dispel Magic: This dispels magic.
> ...




. . .

Are you sure you're up to designing for this "4th Edition" thingy, Lizard?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 3, 2008)

Just a chime in with appologies for my snarkiness.  I was being rude.  My bad.

In my mind, the basic premise for design is to speed game play while not sacrificing tactical choices.  Lizard is right in that you could massively simplify the descriptions, but, that doesn't achieve the design goals.  There is always a trade off.  

So, the "Swiss Army Knife" type spells of earlier editions are likely going to go away or be drastically reduced in scope.  This does reduce tactical choices, but, it increases game play speed.  

The question is, does it reduce tactical choice too much?  Are the new limitations on the option such that the option is no longer a viable choice?  I would argue no, they are not.  As has been shown, dispel can (possibly) be used against summonings.  That's pretty powerful right there. 

Granted, you cannot counterspell, but, then again, how often was this option ever used?  How many wizard characters did the following:  1. Had dispel magic ready 2. Won initiative 3. Readied an action targeting a possble spell caster to counter his spell if he casts?

That's far and away a sub par choice.  I've never seen it done, and, I'll bet dollars to donuts, you haven't either.  

Why include a choice that only comes up one in a thousand?  It was a good idea, but, it didn't work.

Same with shutting off someone's magic sword.  Give up an action to maybe take away a couple of plusses?  Instead of doing any number of other things?  Come on.  Did this ever happen?


----------



## BryonD (Apr 3, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> 4e provided everything I needed.



You clearly are catching the point being made.

It may provide everything *YOU* need, but that doesn't mean it has the same range as 3E.  Clearly it doesn't.

Will less and faster be more popular?  Time will tell.


----------



## CleverNickName (Apr 3, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> And I can testify that my design concerns with the spells placed flavor first and worried about descriptive mechanics afterwards. 4e provided everything I needed.



But...nobody knows what 4E has provided, because it hasn't been released from the printers yet.  Right?

I like the new Dispel Magic.  It is the first step in my favorite direction that I have seen in the last few weeks (my favorite direction being away from the Realms of Let's Add Some More Math and into the Kingdoms of Keep It Simple.)  It is clean and efficient; you make a roll and unbind some magic.  'Nuff said.

I'd like to see some other powers that allow casters to not simply dispel another caster's spells, but hijack them entirely...bring those summoned creatures under their own control, or somehow "steal" the bonuses/hit points/whatever granted by the spell.  That would be rad.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 3, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> . . .
> 
> Are you sure you're up to designing for this "4th Edition" thingy, Lizard?




We'll know when we've seen the rules. IAE, given the lack of a mad rush to jump on the bandwagon by publishers, I probably won't have to worry about it until 2009.


----------



## hong (Apr 3, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> We'll know when we've seen the rules. IAE, given the lack of a mad rush to jump on the bandwagon by publishers, I probably won't have to worry about it until 2009.



 But you're not going to stop talking about it, right?


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 3, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> We'll know when we've seen the rules. IAE, given the lack of a mad rush to jump on the bandwagon by publishers, I probably won't have to worry about it until 2009.



Correction: WE won't have to worry about it until 2009.


----------



## Kishin (Apr 3, 2008)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> So, they nerfed the living hell out of Dispel Magic, one of THE 'core spells'.  Nice, real nice.
> And what's with the thing the designers seem to have with rays of crackling energy?  Seems to be terribly prevalent.




They nerfed the living hell out of the things it targets, too. Without massive buff stacking, Dispel Magic becomes markedly less necessary.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 3, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> But you're not going to stop talking about it, right?




Fail to see any connection.

From a designer's perspective, there's so much missing in 4e that it's a gold mine of sourcebooks waiting to be written. (Let's start with profession skills. And low powered rings. And Bards.) And making monsters is a breeze -- pick a monster name, a noun, and an adjective or a verb, and you're golden! The best part is, you don't even need to create new monsters -- just make up a dozen more variant gnolls and call it a sourcebook. "Exception based design" is t3h r0xx0r! Furthermore, since 'the math' is the same at level 1 and at level 30, you can take the same concept, write new flavor text for it for every five levels or so, and not have to really pound on the numbers all that much. (And if you write incomplete rules, you can say "We object to the 3e philosophy of 'taking the DM out of the equation'; these rules offer greater opportunities for the DM to apply his personal storytelling philosophy to resolution of the scenario".)

I'm not sure if I'll like 4e as a player or a DM, but as a designer...well, it was obviously WRITTEN by designers who knew what they didn't like to do for 3e and made sure no one else would ever have to do it again. It's probably the most designer-friendly version of D&D yet.

(Actually, I think 4e would make a great Supers system -- minions, daily/encounter powers, simplified skills, and very strong roles/archetypes where everyone can kick serious ass all fit perfectly, as does the highly dynamic/mobile combat. That's probably going to be my first personal 4e project, if my time isn't sucked up by other things. Like Brian Griffon, I'm workin' on my novel...)


----------



## hong (Apr 3, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Fail to see any connection.
> 
> From a designer's perspective, there's so much missing in 4e that it's a gold mine of sourcebooks waiting to be written.




... but are you sure you're up to designing for it, Lizard?


----------



## Lizard (Apr 3, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> ... but are you sure you're up to designing for it, Lizard?




Yup.


----------



## hong (Apr 3, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Yup.



 Are you sure about that?


----------



## Lizard (Apr 3, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Are you sure about that?




Yup.


----------



## hong (Apr 3, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Yup.



 I'm not sure about that.


----------



## CleverNickName (Apr 3, 2008)

(this could take a while)

Supers, did you say?  I think you might be right...IIRC, the player characters in 4E are supposed to be rather superhero-ish to begin with.  By making a few flavor changes (spandex instead of robes, retractable adamantine claws instead of swords, etc.) you are already more than halfway there, what with the healing surges and tossing your foe about the room and whatnot.

But I digress.  Dispel magic in 4E?  Probably my favorite power so far.  And I don't have many favorites in 4E.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 3, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, the "Swiss Army Knife" type spells of earlier editions are likely going to go away or be drastically reduced in scope.  This does reduce tactical choices, but, it increases game play speed.



Yes, and we've already seen examples of this in the 3e -> 3.5 revision with similar spells getting broken down into component parts.  _Symbol, emotion_, the psionic versions of _telekinesis_ (one power for each use of the spell), etc.  It's much easier to remember how an ability works when it has a discrete purpose.


----------



## breschau (Apr 3, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Actually, I think 4e would make a great Supers system -- minions, daily/encounter powers, simplified skills, and very strong roles/archetypes where everyone can kick serious ass all fit perfectly, as does the highly dynamic/mobile combat. That's probably going to be my first personal 4e project, if my time isn't sucked up by other things. Like Brian Griffon, I'm workin' on my novel...




I entertained the same thought at first, but there's no need. M&M is _the perfect_ supers system. After playing without class and hp in a supers setting, I can't say that I'd ever go back. The at-will / encounter / daily split would work well to tone down some of the more over-the-top aspects of the supers genre, but really, when you're dealing with people who can fly to the moon and toss 777s around, blasting every round doesn't seem all that over powered.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 3, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Yes, and we've already seen examples of this in the 3e -> 3.5 revision with similar spells getting broken down into component parts.  _Symbol, emotion_, the psionic versions of _telekinesis_ (one power for each use of the spell), etc.  It's much easier to remember how an ability works when it has a discrete purpose.




True.  This is nothing new.  Every edition has scaled back on effects that were too broad.  Some more than others of course.  

I can't help but see this as a good thing.

OTOH, I really hope some of the extremely narrow focus spells go away too.  Water Breathing for example.  Unless you are absolutely sure you will need it, no one ever memorizes this.  Maybe put it on a scroll or two, but that's about it.  It's just WAY too narrow.  I'd rather see a spell that gives you a movement type and the ability to use that movement type.  So, instead of Water Breathing, you get a non-combat version of Alter Self that affects multiple targets.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 3, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Yes, and we've already seen examples of this in the 3e -> 3.5 revision with similar spells getting broken down into component parts.  _Symbol, emotion_, the psionic versions of _telekinesis_ (one power for each use of the spell), etc.  It's much easier to remember how an ability works when it has a discrete purpose.



I must admit, I was a little bit sad about these changes. They were good for casters with a fixed spell known list, since it gave so many options. And there was a specific "D&D appeal" to these spells, since they didn't fit into fixed formulas (my favorite example for the opposite is always Shadowrun and its magic system. Spells there have a very limited effect. Combat spells usually just follow the formula "deal power level boxes of damage", and get drain depending on area of effect and type of damage). 
On the other hand, off course these spells very much appeal to my power-gamer self.


----------



## Primal (Apr 3, 2008)

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> But...nobody knows what 4E has provided, because it hasn't been released from the printers yet.  Right?
> 
> I like the new Dispel Magic.  It is the first step in my favorite direction that I have seen in the last few weeks (my favorite direction being away from the Realms of Let's Add Some More Math and into the Kingdoms of Keep It Simple.)  It is clean and efficient; you make a roll and unbind some magic.  'Nuff said.
> 
> I'd like to see some other powers that allow casters to not simply dispel another caster's spells, but hijack them entirely...bring those summoned creatures under their own control, or somehow "steal" the bonuses/hit points/whatever granted by the spell.  That would be rad.




I'm a bit worried that they're consciously striving for as "minimized" (edited) descriptions as possible. It may save space and result in more powers in PHB, but short descriptions may leave a lot of room for interpretation. What is a clear interpretation of a rule to a designer is not necessarily that to a gamer who is not familiar with the rules.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 3, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> I'm a bit worried that they're consciously striving for as "minimized" (edited) descriptions as possible. It may save space and result in more powers in PHB, but short descriptions may leave a lot of room for interpretation. What is a clear interpretation of a rule to a designer is not necessarily that to a gamer who is not familiar with the rules.



I have seen some rules-lawerying discussions on the D&D rules forum, and it appears to me, that the longer the sentences have gotten, the more interpretations were offered. "Is the part of the comma just an example? Is it an exclusive list? Does the reflexive pronoun refer to the beginning or the end?" 

Or think of Fireball and the notion of setting combustible items to flames and stuff like that. By RAW, if you use a energy substituted (cold) Fireball in a library, the books will burn... 

Again, I really liked some aspects of these longish, detailed spell write-ups. They were nice to read and provide some flavour. But they didn't always help getting exactly the point across they were intended too...


----------



## med stud (Apr 3, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> I'm a bit worried that they're consciously striving for as "minimized" (edited) descriptions as possible. It may save space and result in more powers in PHB, but short descriptions may leave a lot of room for interpretation. What is a clear interpretation of a rule to a designer is not necessarily that to a gamer who is not familiar with the rules.



You may be right. The spell descriptions provided don't seem to leave much room for interpretations to me, though.


----------



## fnwc (Apr 3, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> For example, say I want to make a school of blood wizardry for some villains. Some will be fully statted, others will just have a few relevant spells. I create a new "Blood" keyword, and define it thus; "Using this power subtracts its level in hit points from either the caster or a blood cultist within 10 squares, with no hit roll needed. Cultists or casters dropped below 1 hit point become unconscious or dead as normal after the spell is cast. If the caster draws from a cultist, gain the spell's level in healing. Blood powers gain +2 to all hit rolls and apply a -1 penalty to all saving throws versus their effects." Then I slap it on a bunch of book-standard wizard powers and dole them out to villains, describing the spell effects with suitably gory special effects.



I _think_ this is the idea behind Power Sources. While I haven't seen much different mechanically between the Power Sources we've seen, I think we will at some point.

If this is true, then the idea of Power Sources will allow designers to create an entirely new set of rules governing a broad category of powers without having to tread upon previous ground (such as 3E druid spells vs wizard spells vs cleric spells, etc).


----------



## Primal (Apr 3, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I have seen some rules-lawerying discussions on the D&D rules forum, and it appears to me, that the longer the sentences have gotten, the more interpretations were offered. "Is the part of the comma just an example? Is it an exclusive list? Does the reflexive pronoun refer to the beginning or the end?"
> 
> Or think of Fireball and the notion of setting combustible items to flames and stuff like that. By RAW, if you use a energy substituted (cold) Fireball in a library, the books will burn...
> 
> Again, I really liked some aspects of these longish, detailed spell write-ups. They were nice to read and provide some flavour. But they didn't always help getting exactly the point across they were intended too...




If the terminology in the game is very exact and explicit and those sentences are carefully thought out and leave little room for interpretation, then it is a very good thing. Somehow I doubt it, though, and I'm guessing that in the future this aspect of the rules may actually be the source of most debates at the table.

I've already seen how those few lines may cause confusion when there is no room for explaining "logically" how a power (e.g. White Raven Onslaught) works -- both "realistically" and mechanically (i.e. can you opt *not* to "slide" and charge and whatever even if the Warlord's player insisted on it). And how does it work? If I can react to a Warlord's non-magical command during his turn, why can't I trigger such reactions myself? And so on. Combat may be an abstraction, but the mechanics should not hinder the story or constantly shatter your Suspension of Disbelief.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 3, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I'm not sure about that.




Well, that makes one of us.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 3, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> If the terminology in the game is very exact and explicit and those sentences are carefully thought out and leave little room for interpretation, then it is a very good thing. Somehow I doubt it, though, and I'm guessing that in the future this aspect of the rules may actually be the source of most debates at the table.



So far, I have seen nothing like that. We haven't seen many of these powers, but I don't think any of them so far where ill-defined or imprecise. What they do is clear.



> I've already seen how those few lines may cause confusion when there is no room for explaining "logically" how a power (e.g. White Raven Onslaught) works -- both "realistically" and mechanically (i.e. can you opt *not* to "slide" and charge and whatever even if the Warlord's player insisted on it). And how does it work? If I can react to a Warlord's non-magical command during his turn, why can't I trigger such reactions myself? And so on. Combat may be an abstraction, but the mechanics should not hinder the story or constantly shatter your Suspension of Disbelief.




If you want to understand what the game mechanic does, only look at the game mechanic. If you want to describe what happens in the game-world, use whatever flavor text is implied and sounds reasonable.

But don't try to apply your flavor text back onto the game mechanic and try to extrapolate further rules. That's wrong, and always leads to problems.


A Vorpal Sword allows the wielder to behead a foe.
But my PC doesn't need a Vorpal Sword to behead someone. If I decide to flavor my killing blow or coup-de-grace with a head-chop, that's what happens. But I shouldn't believe that my sword just got a +5 enhancement for free.

Suspension of Disbelief only becomes a problem if you thing the game-world and the real-world have similar rules (with some extra rules for magic), and the game mechanics are a model for the game-world, just as our scientifically gathered physical laws are a model for the real-world. But that's not what the rules are. They tell you what happens in the game, yes, but they don't explain how. 
If you want, you can see it as an implication. Game Mechanic Event => Game World Event. If "Game Mechanic Event" is false, "Game World Event" can be true or false. The implication is true either way. So, if X happens when you use mechanic Y, it does not follow that Y was used if X happens. 
Example: "Confirmed Critical with a Vorpal Sword" => "Head Chopped Off". But not "Head Chopped Off" => "Confirmed Critical with a Vorpal Sword"


----------



## Wolv0rine (Apr 3, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> They nerfed the living hell out of the things it targets, too. Without massive buff stacking, Dispel Magic becomes markedly less necessary.



Which is strange, considering that Dispel Magic has been in the game longer than the 3E convention of "Okay, let's have the casters throw all their buffs on us, then engage".  Dispel Magic was a pretty versatile spell.


----------



## mmu1 (Apr 3, 2008)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Which is strange, considering that Dispel Magic has been in the game longer than the 3E convention of "Okay, let's have the casters throw all their buffs on us, then engage".  Dispel Magic was a pretty versatile spell.




"All the healing spells are too hard to keep track of and they take up too much space! Cure, Remove Disease, Neautralize Poison, Lesser Restoration, Restoration, Regenerate, Heal..."

"It's ok, we fixed it. There's only one healing spell now - we call it Heal - and it only heals falling damage taken when someone uses a power to Slide you over a drop, or from being speared by a Goblin Picador. I know it doesn't sound very useful at first glance, but everything else now only damages you for one round, or till the end of the encounter, so you don't need it to do anything else. Best of all, it's only 15 lines of text!"  

Yet another triumph for the "If it's not essential for miniature combat, it doesn't need to be in the game." school of thought. Mmm, fun.


----------



## med stud (Apr 3, 2008)

I don't think there is _any_ powerful anti-magic spell or ability in this edition the way Dispel magic used to be. Consider that martial abilities keep pace with magical abilities now, a blanket dispel magic would hose the arcane and the divine power source compared to the martial power source. The old dispel magic was more powerful, yes, but the old magic was also more powerful than the new magic.

I think much of the negativity towards the "nerfing" of Dispel magic is due to judging a 4e spell against a 3e backdrop. 3e Dispel magic was fine for it's edition (if a bit slow to resolve) while I suppose 4e Dispel magic will be fine for 4e.


----------



## Knightlord (Apr 3, 2008)

To be completely honest, I kinda like this new version of Dispel Magic. Sure some of the diversity is gone, but it makes it a little faster in game. Really, my group rarely ever used Dispel Magic in 3e simply due to it's massive potential uses (and the huge amount of text explaining those potential uses). When we did use it, we just kinda simplified it down to: Ok, save against the spell. Does he have any SR? No. And he didn't save? No. Well, the monster loses this buff and this buff, but not this buff (depending on the roll). Did it follow the rules? No. Did it make the game faster and more enjoyable? Yes, at least in my opinion.

My point: Just because something has been simplified in how it is used or what it does, that does not mean that it has been made completely useless. Just different. And perhaps, slighty easier to manage.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 3, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I have seen some rules-lawerying discussions on the D&D rules forum, and it appears to me, that the longer the sentences have gotten, the more interpretations were offered. "Is the part of the comma just an example? Is it an exclusive list? Does the reflexive pronoun refer to the beginning or the end?"
> 
> Or think of Fireball and the notion of setting combustible items to flames and stuff like that. By RAW, if you use a energy substituted (cold) Fireball in a library, the books will burn...
> 
> Again, I really liked some aspects of these longish, detailed spell write-ups. They were nice to read and provide some flavour. But they didn't always help getting exactly the point across they were intended too...



And IMO, that's a step in the right direction.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 3, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> I don't think there is _any_ powerful anti-magic spell or ability in this edition the way Dispel magic used to be. Consider that martial abilities keep pace with magical abilities now, a blanket dispel magic would hose the arcane and the divine power source compared to the martial power source.




Which would help make Martial heroes feel like they weren't using "magic by another name".


----------



## med stud (Apr 3, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Which would help make Martial heroes feel like they weren't using "magic by another name".



Why would they feel they were using magic? The only way a Martial hero's player would feel like he is using "magic by another name" is if the player is far too ingrained in D&D thinking. A fighter using Tide of Iron doesn't feel like "gee, this is magical!" Same thing with the rogue, etc.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 3, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> Why would they feel they were using magic? The only way a Martial hero's player would feel like he is using "magic by another name" is if the player is far too ingrained in D&D thinking. A fighter using Tide of Iron doesn't feel like "gee, this is magical!" Same thing with the rogue, etc.




If you do about the same damage, use about the same resources, have about the same general options...if it quacks like a duck...

If the power sources don't produce *meaningful* mechanical differences, there's tremendous sameness. The old methods of distinguishing characters - variable power curves over levels, variable resource management, diversity vs. depth - don't apply in 4e. Everyone has the same BAb, the same saves, the same number of powers/level, the same power management issues, and so on. A warlord can heal as well as a cleric. Rogues, rangers, and warlocks are all Strikers. The distinction between a magic missile and a crossbow bolt is now solely one of ammunition, and who the hell has EVER run out of ammo in Actual Play?

So, yeah, I'd like a more powerful dispel magic, so that Martial heroes feel they're really doing something *different* than their divine and arcane counterparts. Magic should be unreliable, fickle, mysterious -- or at least be a resource which can be removed or shut down more easily than the training/skill which are the basis of a Martial heroes powers. (The use of PE/D 'Martial' abilities REALLY makes them feel like spells; the more that can be done to diffirentiate true spells from 'martial exploits', the better.)


----------



## Knightlord (Apr 3, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> If you do about the same damage, use about the same resources, have about the same general options...if it quacks like a duck...
> 
> I don't think I follow. What you mentioned are out-of-game thoughts. Med, and correct me if i'm wrong Med, implied that the characters in game do not think of their abilities as magical. It's just what they do, something they've learned or have gained through training. Now, looking at it from a player's view (as you seem to be doing), then yes, the Martial Power Source looks kinda magical in nature, though I suspect that is due the designers just trying to balance the three current Sources. But looking through a character's perspective, they're just maneuvers they pull off and there's no magic about it.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 3, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> If you do about the same damage, use about the same resources, have about the same general options...if it quacks like a duck...




Which martial ability shuts down zones and conjurations again?



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> If the power sources don't produce *meaningful* mechanical differences, there's tremendous sameness. The old methods of distinguishing characters - variable power curves over levels, variable resource management, diversity vs. depth - don't apply in 4e. Everyone has the same BAb, the same saves, the same number of powers/level, the same power management issues, and so on. A warlord can heal as well as a cleric. Rogues, rangers, and warlocks are all Strikers. The distinction between a magic missile and a crossbow bolt is now solely one of ammunition, and who the hell has EVER run out of ammo in Actual Play?




The sample characters have meaningful mechanical differences starting at level one. There's no reason to believe that a Warlord necessarily heals as well as a Cleric (though there can be some certainty that he heals better than a Paladin). The distinction between Magic Missile and a crossbow bolt is that it attacks Reflex while still counting as a basic attack.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> So, yeah, I'd like a more powerful dispel magic, so that Martial heroes feel they're really doing something *different* than their divine and arcane counterparts. Magic should be unreliable, fickle, mysterious -- or at least be a resource which can be removed or shut down more easily than the training/skill which are the basis of a Martial heroes powers. (The use of PE/D 'Martial' abilities REALLY makes them feel like spells; the more that can be done to diffirentiate true spells from 'martial exploits', the better.)




You've got a powerful dispel magic. It shuts down a pit fiend's army of summons in one shot, among other things. You've got magical effects that are actually doing something *different* than their martial counterparts (such as fly and invisibility and shutting down an army of summons in one shot).

Powerful, universally applicable Dispel Magic doesn't make magic any more fickle or mysterious, it just means that the best counter to magic is more magic.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 3, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> Which martial ability shuts down zones and conjurations again?




Give it time.


----------



## med stud (Apr 3, 2008)

Knightlord said:
			
		

> Lizard said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## med stud (Apr 3, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> If you do about the same damage, use about the same resources, have about the same general options...if it quacks like a duck...
> 
> If the power sources don't produce *meaningful* mechanical differences, there's tremendous sameness. The old methods of distinguishing characters - variable power curves over levels, variable resource management, diversity vs. depth - don't apply in 4e. Everyone has the same BAb, the same saves, the same number of powers/level, the same power management issues, and so on. A warlord can heal as well as a cleric. Rogues, rangers, and warlocks are all Strikers. The distinction between a magic missile and a crossbow bolt is now solely one of ammunition, and who the hell has EVER run out of ammo in Actual Play?



Mechanical differences isn't the same thing as thematical differences. It _is_ a b***h to balance, though. Power management exists, not in availability but in choices what power to use. Then it's a case of preference what kind of managament you like most.


> So, yeah, I'd like a more powerful dispel magic, so that Martial heroes feel they're really doing something *different* than their divine and arcane counterparts. Magic should be unreliable, fickle, mysterious -- or at least be a resource which can be removed or shut down more easily than the training/skill which are the basis of a Martial heroes powers. (The use of PE/D 'Martial' abilities REALLY makes them feel like spells; the more that can be done to diffirentiate true spells from 'martial exploits', the better.)



Magic that PCs can use will never be mysterious. The player needs the exact rules to be able to play and if you know everything about something, it stops being mysterious. As for fickle and unreliable: Sometimes you succeed with your spell (=defeat the other guy's defense), sometimes not. Same thing with random damage etc. Much of this is up to description as well.

I don't see why magic necessarily should be easier to turn off than skill and training. There is no magic IRL to compare with. There _is_ though a lot of in-grained thinking about how magic should behave, learned from years and years of RPGs and CRPGs. Just because it was done that way in the past doesn't mean that it is the only way to do it.

You certainly can't use logic as an explanation why magic should come in discrete packages and be easy to turn off. That's a pure D&D-ism, in any case the per day- nature of spells.


----------



## Cyronax (Apr 3, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Give it time.





That's not much of an argument. I could twiddle with some weird marking ability that enables a fighter to shut down a marked caster's ongoing conjurations or something (... even though that'd be weird if the conjuration weren't sustained by minor actions?). 

Conversely, I can simply assume that the designers are establishing a 'design bible' that will maintain the balance and proper scope of the various power sources. 

Idle spec. Anyway, if you're ever proved right (by an official WotC sourcebook), then 4e will have officially jumped the shark, IMO. I think 3.5 jumped the shark with the release of the Player's Handbook II .... neither here nor there.

C.I.D.


----------



## med stud (Apr 3, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Give it time.



I would be very surprised if it came, at least from WotC. It would be like waiting for a green instant in MtG that deals 3 damage to a target for one colourless mana and one green, no strings attached.


----------



## Leatherhead (Apr 3, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Give it time.



I wonder if they will remake Iron Heart Surge?


----------



## FireLance (Apr 4, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> Which martial ability shuts down zones and conjurations again?



Being whacked repeatedly by a weapon should shut down most conjurations.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 4, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Being whacked repeatedly by a weapon should shut down most conjurations.



Actually, yeah, even things like telekentic sphere have hp now, so I guess we already have that ability, and it's called "a basic attack".


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Apr 4, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Actually, yeah, even things like telekentic sphere have hp now, so I guess we already have that ability, and it's called "a basic attack".



Ye gods, they've already gotten rid of Magic Missile as the unstoppable force; have Telekinetic Sphere and Wall of Force finally ceased to be the immovable object?  I'd love it if D&D stopped making the universe implode.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 4, 2008)

Merlin the Tuna said:
			
		

> Ye gods, they've already gotten rid of Magic Missile as the unstoppable force; have Telekinetic Sphere and Wall of Force finally ceased to be the immovable object?  I'd love it if D&D stopped making the universe implode.



I don't think you can actually move the sphere, so don't worry, D&D physics isn't going to be making sense anytime soon.


----------



## Kishin (Apr 4, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Magic should be unreliable, fickle, mysterious -- or at least be a resource which can be removed or shut down more easily than the training/skill which are the basis of a Martial heroes powers.




Maybe in your campaign world Magic is unreliable, fickle and mysterious, but I've seen quite a few where that isn't a case. I don't think this is the sort of thing that should be imposed on someone. Furthermore, why should it be easier to counter? How is that in any way fair to people playing magic using classes? What do you tell them? 'Sorry, your class is just easier to counter because magic is unreliable and fickle.' That doesn't sound very fun.

Good game design (and universal mechanics are good game design) should be a paramount concern of the people who are mechanically designing games.



			
				Leatherhead said:
			
		

> I wonder if they will remake Iron Heart Surge?




IMO there's not the need for Iron Heart Surge there was in 3.5E, thanks to the whole 'save ends' mechanic.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 4, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> Maybe in your campaign world Magic is unreliable, fickle and mysterious, but I've seen quite a few where that isn't a case. I don't think this is the sort of thing that should be imposed on someone. Furthermore, why should it be easier to counter? How is that in any way fair to people playing magic using classes?




Because magic can do anything, and so, they will always have an edge in flexibility...unless, of course, all power sets are basically identical with different flavor text. The idea that abilities derived from practice and training *differ* from abilities derived from controlling the flow of an external power source is part of not only D&D, but much fantasy literature, and removing the distinctions in mechanics is a poor choice.



> Good game design (and universal mechanics are good game design) should be a paramount concern of the people who are mechanically designing games.




Making people feel choices matter is good game design. Creating multiple sets of identical powers and hoping no one peels back the label to see they're all the same is not.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 4, 2008)

4e Iron Heart Surge
Fighter Utility Level 2
Per Encounter, Personal, Minor Action
For each ongoing effect on your character that permits a save, you may choose to roll one saving throw.


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 4, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Making people feel choices matter is good game design. Creating multiple sets of identical powers and hoping no one peels back the label to see they're all the same is not.



I agree completely with this point.

But the moment that I see a completely non-magical martial ability with the zone or conjuration keyword is when I will see what connection this point has to 4th edition. If zones and conjurations are only ever attached to magic, then one can hardly say that what a sword can do and what a spell can do are the same thing.

Mechanically, yes, you can understand the effects of a fireball in terms of a sword strike. But that is simply consistent mechanical design at work, the designers are under no obligation to actually give a sword strike the properties of a fireball. Much like they are under no obligation to give both a dagger and a longsword the same damage die.


----------



## Thyrwyn (Apr 4, 2008)

@Lizard - Magic can not do anything.  Magic can only do what the rules let it.  The rules _should_ only "let it" do that which is consistent with the setting/genre.







			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> Making people feel choices matter is good game design. Creating multiple sets of identical powers and hoping no one peels back the label to see they're all the same is not.



Show me examples of this being the case from the abilities we have seen - I haven't seen it.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 4, 2008)

I suspect that if and when martial characters get some kind of magic-disrupting ability, it will be something of the sort that allows them to interrupt a caster's ability to sustain his powers. For example:

Disrupting Strike
Attack: Strength vs Will
Hit: [w] + strength damage, and any powers the target is sustaining end as if he had failed to spend the required action to sustain it.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 4, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Give it time.




Guilty of a crime they have yet to commit, eh? Brilliant.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 5, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Guilty of a crime they have yet to commit, eh? Brilliant.




It would be badwrongfun for a fighter-type to be unable to end conjuration and zone effects, like the wizard can. After all, we all have to be useful in every fight, and always have something to do, eh?

It's a symptom of the game design. This will lead to everyone being able to do everything.



			
				med stud said:
			
		

> Mechanical differences isn't the same thing as thematical differences. It is a b***h to balance, though. Power management exists, not in availability but in choices what power to use. Then it's a case of preference what kind of managament you like most.




Difficult to balance, yes, but then there are actual differences between the classes. This was one of my major frustrations with earlier editions - if you play a fighter in 1e, congrats, you have played out the class. There is nothing new to explore, mechanically; it is no longer interesting to play.

Mechanical differences accentuate and reinforce the thematic and flavor differences. The game is a framework for the setting - in 3.5, you can call yourself a pirate, but if you are using the rogue class as a vehicle to that end, _you are still a rogue_, and you have all the mechanical ramifications of that decision. If you want the thematic differences to be accentuated and stand out in ways other than claiming "Oh, I'm not a rogue, I'm a pirate," then you need to back those distinctions up with mechanical differences.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 5, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> It would be badwrongfun for a fighter-type to be unable to end conjuration and zone effects, like the wizard can. After all, we all have to be useful in every fight, and always have something to do, eh?
> 
> It's a symptom of the game design. This will lead to everyone being able to do everything.



Pff, this is why you aren't a game designer, most conjurations are summoned _things_ which can be smacked, thus an ability which just gets rid of them is in no way necessary to be able to "do something". Zones are things like grease and icestorm, Martial characters get better physical skills which allow them to operate better inside those effects, the new skill system makes that require less resources to do.

So no, you don't need to resort to that kind of thing to be useful and have something to do.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 5, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> It would be badwrongfun for a fighter-type to be unable to end conjuration and zone effects, like the wizard can. After all, we all have to be useful in every fight, and always have something to do, eh?
> 
> It's a symptom of the game design. This will lead to everyone being able to do everything.




Nonsense. You could have said the same thing about previous editions of the game, and yet that wasn't the case. You can give everyone useful options without giving any two people the same ability. And it certainly looks like that's exactly what they're doing. If anything, the classes in 4th edition are *more* distinguished than ever before. Instead of every fighting class sharing the same combat abilities (power attack, cleave, etc) and magic using classes having dozens of spells in common, every class in 4th edition gets its own, entirely unique set of powers.

It seems to me that the entire reason they have different power sources is so that they can sum up what would and wouldn't be an appropriate power for that type of character. The difference between the power sources is entirely thematic, but that can mean everything. You won't see Wizards doing overtly physical things nor will you see fighters doing overtly magical things. Why will a martial character be different from an arcane or divine character? For the same reason that clerics and wizards are different, despite both being magic users. Some things are just not thematically appropriate for one or the other to do.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 5, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> It would be badwrongfun for a fighter-type to be unable to end conjuration and zone effects, like the wizard can. After all, we all have to be useful in every fight, and always have something to do, eh?




There is a difference between "useful in a fight, *within your role*," and "useful in a fight, *in any role*." Removing/adding complications to the battle/battlefield (conjurations and zones) is the job of a Controller, not a Defender. If you're going to try and harp on the game design, please at least correctly identify things.



> It's a symptom of the game design. This will lead to everyone being able to do everything.




Yes, it's a symptom of role-based game design that the roles will become meaningless.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 5, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Pff, this is why you aren't a game designer, most conjurations are summoned things which can be smacked, thus an ability which just gets rid of them is in no way necessary to be able to "do something".




Was the personal comment really necessary? You could've made your point without being rude about it.

Attacking a conjured critter is not the same as negating the effect that produced it.



> Zones are things like grease and icestorm, Martial characters get better physical skills which allow them to operate better inside those effects, the new skill system makes that require less resources to do.




Getting around an effect and negating it are two different things.



			
				Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> You can give everyone useful options without giving any two people the same ability. And it certainly looks like that's exactly what they're doing. If anything, the classes in 4th edition are *more* distinguished than ever before. Instead of every fighting class sharing the same combat abilities (power attack, cleave, etc) and magic using classes having dozens of spells in common, every class in 4th edition gets its own, entirely unique set of powers.




I'll grant that 4e is giving more options to the fighter-types, which is good. They needed it. Bo9S had some balance issues, IMO, but it's a vast improvement over core fighters.

My issue with what we've seen of 4e so far is that the abilities all seem rather bland and similar; sure, the fluff is different, but the mechanical bits aren't. Most of the things we've seen come in the flavor of "damage + (condition || side-effect || more damage)" - regardless of power source. 

Admittedly, most of what we're seeing is 1st-level abilities, which are going to be similar because the range of acceptable damage and side-effects is small at that level. But I have a sneaking suspicion that this is going to persist throughout the levels, because it is easier to balance large sets of abilities if their possible effects fall within a limited space, and that would seem to jibe with the design philosophy that everyone should be about as effective as everyone else.



> Some things are just not thematically appropriate for one or the other to do.




...I don't think we're in disagreement, here. There are things fighters should be better at than wizards, and vice-versa.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 5, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> There is a difference between "useful in a fight, *within your role*," and "useful in a fight, *in any role*." Removing/adding complications to the battle/battlefield (conjurations and zones) is the job of a Controller, not a Defender.




I'm fairly certain that a creative reason for a tank having such an ability could be conceived. Or not - explaining things from an in-game standpoint doesn't seem to be in vogue at the moment, so they could just throw it out there with no explanation.

I'm also fairly certain that a situation in which a tank would have no recourse other than to directly interfere with a magical cause (as opposed to its effect: conjuration spell being the cause, conjured critter being the effect) could be conceived. In such an instance, the philosophy of always having something to do comes in, and now the tank has a method of dealing with such things.



> Yes, it's a symptom of role-based game design that the roles will become meaningless.




Eventually, yes. Power-creep almost demands it.

I'll make a WoW comparison here, because WoW also uses roles. A class is not necessarily meant to fulfill a single role - a warrior can DPS (striker) or tank (defender). A paladin can heal, DPS, or tank. A priest can spell DPS or heal. You are not shoehorned into a role due to your class selection - most of the classes have options regarding what role they can fulfill.

It is not much of a stretch, then, to think that the same sort of thing will happen to 4e classes - yes, the fighter may default to a defender, but he may be granted access to abilities that allow him to function as a different role. This may even be done to increase support for groups of smaller players. The point here being that it is not beyond imagining that a class that is said to be a specific role will be given, at some point in the future, the tools to assume another one. The roles won't be meaningless, but classes will not be as strictly tied to them as time goes on.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 5, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> "damage + (condition || side-effect || more damage)"




This view of the powers is vague to the point of being meaningless. That's how things were in 3e too.

Fireball - Damage in an Area
Smite Evil - Damage + (More Damage)
Weapon Specialization - Damage + (More Damage)
Sneak Attack - Damage + (More Damage)
Barbarian Rage - Damage + (More Damage)


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 5, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> I'm fairly certain that a creative reason for a tank having such an ability could be conceived.




I'm fairly certain one can, too.

The difference between us is that I'm not convinced the designers are violating the role structure they put in place, simply because I can conceive of things that do so. They cemented roles and powers based around fulfilling those roles intentionally, and suggesting that they're already in the process of breaking them (thus, declaring them guilty before the crime) is *pure fiction on your part*.



> In such an instance, the philosophy of always having something to do comes in, and now the tank has a method of dealing with such things.




And again, there is a difference between "always having something to do *within your role*" and "always having something to do *within all roles*."



> Eventually, yes. Power-creep almost demands it.




Um, no.

Power-creep demands that the *level of power* increases, not that *roles become meaningless*. It demands a tank be better at tanking, not suddenly become a healer.



> I'll make a WoW comparison here, because WoW also uses roles. A class is not necessarily meant to fulfill a single role - a warrior can DPS (striker) or tank (defender). A paladin can heal, DPS, or tank. A priest can spell DPS or heal. You are not shoehorned into a role due to your class selection - most of the classes have options regarding what role they can fulfill.




Bad comparison, since WoW classes are *designed to fulfill multiple roles with the right gear and spec*, while D&D classes are designed to fill *one role*, as of present.



> It is not much of a stretch...




A lot of things aren't a stretch, but that still doesn't make it anything but *speculative fiction* on your part.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 5, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> This view of the powers is vague to the point of being meaningless. That's how things were in 3e too.




I'll address each of your examples in turn.

Fireball - this affected a circular area, and had the side-effect of setting everything in the area on fire. It had an awkward requirement on its use (you had to be able to shoot the origin of the ball with a growing point, or however they described that).

Smite Evil - thematically appropriate. You deal more damage to a certifiably evil creature. This is not a generic "push 1 square" type of side-effect.

Weapon Specialization - Eh... I'll grant that. But that ties into the lameness that is 3.5 fighters, and this feat was an attempt to make them less sucky, I think.

Sneak Attack - again, thematically appropriate. You have to flank and/or catch them by surprise. You don't gain the extra damage against creatures for which it makes no sense: oozes, elementals, undead. You have to deal real damage, unless you're using a sap.

Barbarian rage - thematically appropriate. You exchange defensive capability for offensive power, and you suffer a drawback when it ends, specifically being fatigued and suffering temporary ability score penalties.

All of these things that you list (aside from weapon spec, which I'll grant you) have "fiddly bits," as it were, that make them stand out. A fireball is significantly different from other damage spells, because it has several nuances specific to it. Sneak attack and barbarian rage both have requirements, restrictions, and drawbacks that are thematically tied to what the ability is trying to represent.

You could argue that these fiddly bits were just that, fiddly bits, which added little to the game in exchange for increased complexity and frustration. I'd grant that, but that doesn't change the fact that removing those fiddly bits makes the abilities more bland and less interesting.

The point I was trying to get across in the post you quoted here, is that the vast majority of abilities we have seen have been "deal [w] and push 1 square," "deal [w] and slow for 1 round," "deal 2[w] and str damage to an adjacent creature." These are fair effects, but they're not terribly interesting, and when you try to cut down on the number of conditions in the game, you are severely limiting the design space, because most of these have been in the "damage + condition" category.

Like I said, most of what we have is 1st-level stuff, which is understandably bland. I'm just worried that the trend will continue throughout the rest of the progression.



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> The difference between us is that I'm not convinced the designers are violating the role structure they put in place, simply because I can conceive of things that do so. They cemented roles and powers based around fulfilling those roles intentionally, and suggesting that they're already in the process of breaking them (thus, declaring them guilty before the crime) is *pure fiction on your part.*




I think that it will come down to a clashing of design philosophies - the idea of classes and roles being intricately tied together, and the idea that everyone should have something to do in every situation. Because there are situations in which a defender-type would be completely useless, at the moment, this clash *will* happen.

I'm not accusing them of doing it now. I'm just saying that I wouldn't be surprised if they went that route.



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> And again, there is a difference between "always having something to do within your role" and "always having something to do within all roles."




Petrification is bad. Rust monsters eating your stuff is bad. Save-or-die is bad.

These particular things are focused on the idea that, if you are sitting at the table, you should always have something useful to do. This is in opposition to the idea that what you can do must be within your role, because - as has been pointed out - we can both envision situations in which no ability from your role is useful in a given situation.

The game cannot have it both ways. One or the other will give. It has to, because these two ideas are mutually exclusive. Not always, perhaps not in the vast majority of cases, but because there are instances in which only one of the two approaches can exist, then one must triumph over the other.



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> Power-creep demands that the level of power increases, not that roles become meaningless. It demands a tank be better at tanking, not suddenly become a healer.




Look at the 1e wizard spell list, then the 3.5 wizard spell list.

The options available to the wizard across the editions has expanded exponentially (okay, maybe not exponentially, but you get the idea). The wizard has gained access to spells that allow him to trump most other classes.

If you don't like that example, then how about the CoDzilla. A party of four clerics can survive in 3.5 perfectly fine, because the class can reasonably fulfill each of the "roles" in 3.5.

Power-creep can indeed mean that the roles become meaningless.



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> Bad comparison, since WoW classes are *designed to fulfill multiple roles with the right gear and spec*, while D&D classes are designed to fill one role, as of present.




Players like options. Some amount of versatility added to the classes is almost inevitable, because of that. Look at any earlier edition. It's the nature of the game for things to be expanded upon. Is it a guarantee that they'll break the roles? No. But it is a strong possibility.



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> A lot of things aren't a stretch, but that still doesn't make it anything but *speculative fiction* on your part.




Is there any particular reason that you feel it necessary to bold your comments constantly? It's rather unnecessary; I can assure you that I'm not blind.

Anything either of us says, regarding anything we haven't yet seen, is little more than speculative fiction, so I fail to see your point.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 5, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Because there are situations in which a defender-type would be completely useless, at the moment, this clash *will* happen.




The only way a Defender would be useless is if the DM builds encounters where such is the case. That's a problem with the person running your game, not the rules. You're essentially saying that because a DM can make a bad encounter, the rules need to be set up so that characters can completely violate their role in order to correct it.

I disagree.



> I'm not accusing them of doing it now. I'm just saying that I wouldn't be surprised if they went that route.




You said "This will lead to everyone being able to do everything." That's a little more than saying "Oh, I wouldn't be surprised..." especially since the comment you were replying to was my "guilty before the commission" comment.



> These particular things are focused on the idea that, if you are sitting at the table, you should always have something useful to do. This is in opposition to the idea that what you can do must be within your role, because - as has been pointed out - we can both envision situations in which no ability from your role is useful in a given situation.




And, again, you're taking the "poorly built encounter" situation and applying it in a heavy-handed way that then violates the entire purpose behind roles: everyone is not good at everything.



> The game cannot have it both ways. One or the other will give. It has to, because these two ideas are mutually exclusive. Not always, perhaps not in the vast majority of cases, but because there are instances in which only one of the two approaches can exist, then one must triumph over the other.




Yeah, it can, because it can expect DMs to make reasonable encounters that involves everyone in the party. Your solution is basically "let anyone do anything," which eliminates the need for roles and classes, which is opposite the design team's philosophy.



> Power-creep can indeed mean that the roles become meaningless.




You're conflating power creep with lack of defined roles. The cleric could pull off CoDZilla because they didn't properly define it in 3e, allowing it to become anything the player wanted. An example of power creep are spells in supplements that make core spells useless, not because they move you outside your role, but because they are simply more powerful for the same cost.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 5, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> You said "This will lead to everyone being able to do everything." That's a little more than saying "Oh, I wouldn't be surprised..." especially since the comment you were replying to was my "guilty before the commission" comment.




My initial comments were, admittedly, perhaps a bit shortsighted.

I think that the "everyone must contribute" mentality will win over the "every class has a role" approach. Is that a guarantee? No, and it was a bit unfair of me to say that it was a guarantee. But I wouldn't rule it out, and I would argue that it will win, in the end.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Apr 5, 2008)

Mourn I swear you are the most annoying poster on this board, you've just turned yourself into the prophet of the One True Game and everyone else into badwrongfun.  Get over it.

Some of us might see it as an entirely valid form of encounter design.  Sometimes you hit things that just suck for somebody, deal with it.  So long as it's not repeatedly singling out one PC it's entirely reasonable to design an encounter that throws a PC for a loop.  The answer to every problem is not HIT IT WITH A HAMMER.  Sometimes the hammer just doesn't work and you need a different tool.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 5, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Mourn I swear you are the most annoying poster on this board




Does this mean you're RSVPing no for my 4e Booster Tea Party? You're breaking my heart, Anakin.



> you've just turned yourself into the prophet of the One True Game




Yeah, like I'd ever apply a religious title to myself.



> and everyone else into badwrongfun.  Get over it.




Try reading more carefully. If you do it carefully enough, you might actually notice that I was talking about the claims that GnomeWorks was making in relation to the stated design intent, not passing judgment on anyone's encounter design or game preferences.



> Some of us might see it as an entirely valid form of encounter design.  Sometimes you hit things that just suck for somebody, deal with it.  So long as it's not repeatedly singling out one PC it's entirely reasonable to design an encounter that throws a PC for a loop.  The answer to every problem is not HIT IT WITH A HAMMER.  Sometimes the hammer just doesn't work and you need a different tool.




Congratulations on missing the entire point of my posts in this thread. There should be some kind of Captain Oblivious Award for occasions like this.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Apr 5, 2008)

No Mourn I fully understand your post.  What I was trying to say is that its changes are inherently nonsensical for an entire segment of the market it seeks to capture.  

Beyond that I agree with Gnomewerks that I anticipate the "always contribute" faction will ultimately win out and invalidate their own initial design philosophy.  We can already see this with the removal of so many effects that would remove characters from play even for a couple rounds or destroy their equipment.  I think we will see abilities which are mechanically almost identical to magical effects but have a different flavor text because not giving them a way to contribute in that situation would go against the zeitgeist they're building and will only become stronger with time.


----------



## Stogoe (Apr 5, 2008)

IMO, Mourn is probably the most worthwhile poster on these entire forums, and I seek out his posts because he's one of the few who aren't wildly distorting the previews with overly-pessimistic freak-outs.

Rock on, Mourn.  Rock on.

EDIT: oh, and Dispel Magic, or something.


----------



## hong (Apr 5, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> You are not shoehorned into a role due to your class selection - most of the classes have options regarding what role they can fulfill.




Brilliant.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 5, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Mourn I swear you are the most annoying poster on this board, you've just turned yourself into the prophet of the One True Game and everyone else into badwrongfun.  Get over it.





Dude, you are posting in a _4e forum_.  Some of the people in here are optimistic about the new game.  Go figure.  If you cannot handle that, this is not the forum for you.  We have many others.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 6, 2008)

Stogoe said:
			
		

> IMO, Mourn is probably the most worthwhile poster on these entire forums, and I seek out his posts because he's one of the few who aren't wildly distorting the previews with overly-pessimistic freak-outs.
> 
> Rock on, Mourn.  Rock on.
> 
> EDIT: oh, and Dispel Magic, or something.




Well... damn... I dunno what to say aside from thanks! I always blush like a schoolgirl when I get complimented like this.

I always try and put myself in both the developer/designer's shoes and the player's shoes. I understand what it's like to see changes that make no sense to you, as a player. On the other hand, I know what it's like to work things out as a designer/developer and then have random players judge that process without knowing all the ins-and-outs of it.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 6, 2008)

Stogoe said:
			
		

> IMO, Mourn is probably the most worthwhile poster on these entire forums, and I seek out his posts because he's one of the few who aren't wildly distorting the previews with overly-pessimistic freak-outs.



I feel somehow the same, although I can't stand the sentence-by-sentence quoting.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 6, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> I feel somehow the same, although I can't stand the sentence-by-sentence quoting.




Mourn
Race: Forum Troll
Class: Game Designer
Alignment: Chaotic Argumentative
Signature Power: Point-by-Point Dissection


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Signature Power: Point-by-Point Dissection



Effect: Target gives up (save ends).


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 6, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Was the personal comment really necessary? You could've made your point without being rude about it.



Probably, I'll try to keep it in mind.


			
				GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Attacking a conjured critter is not the same as negating the effect that produced it.
> 
> Getting around an effect and negating it are two different things.



The mantra is "everyone will have something interesting to do" not "everyone can do everything", it's the same as the change in skills, there's always going to be a gradiation of usefulness, and a Wizard with dispel able to completely remove an effect in one action while the fighter will have to smack through the hp or or accept the fact that her higher fort/athletics makes the grease/Bigbies hand less effective than it would be on a wizard.


I'm going to quote this next bit out of context a bit, if it doesn't capture what you're trying to say, please tell me.


			
				GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> You could argue that these fiddly bits were just that, fiddly bits, which added little to the game in exchange for increased complexity and frustration. I'd grant that, but that doesn't change the fact that removing those fiddly bits makes the abilities more bland and less interesting.



Thing is, I really like games like M&M which completely remove the 'fiddly bits' and just allow you to take and flavour your abilities how you want, and I love the  fact the 4e is moving that direction. Magic vs melee /should/ be a difference of flavour and 'what can I do' not 'how do I manage my resources' or the mechanics of how it works, IMO divine magic feels more faith based in 4e, and arcane casters feel like casters, not database managers, lance of faith and ray of frost feel far more different to me than bless/haste or flamestrike/fireball ever did in 3.x.

But that's just personal opinion, so whatever.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Well... damn... I dunno what to say aside from thanks! I always blush like a schoolgirl when I get complimented like this.




Don't get too proud of yourself.      I'm a huge 4e booster, and I kinda find some of tactics a little annoying.

You really should be more straightforward and direct.  Like hong or something.


----------

