Anti-martial effects?

[lukelightning]

D&D has traditionally had many effects that inhibit magic. Spell resistance, anti-magic fields, anti-magic beholder eyebeams, verbal/somatic/material components, dispel magic, etc.

Is 4e going to have a similar set of effects to deal with martial maneuvers? We can all envision an aura that inhibits magic, but some sort of "anti-kungu aura" just seems wacky. But if there is no similar way to inhibit martial effects then it could be quite unbalancing.

 

[invokethehojo]

True, but from everything I have read there is no area-of-effect martial powers. Taking away one guys power to hurt one dude per round -owie- taking away one (or more) guys power to hurt/heal multiple guys per round -now your screwed.

 

[lukelightning]

True, but from everything I have read there is no area-of-effect martial powers.

What does area-of-effect have to do with it? There are plenty of ways to nerf magic, there should be just as many ways to nerf martial maneuvers.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

D&D has traditionally had many effects that inhibit magic. Spell resistance, anti-magic fields, anti-magic beholder eyebeams, verbal/somatic/material components, dispel magic, etc.

Is 4e going to have a similar set of effects to deal with martial maneuvers? We can all envision an aura that inhibits magic, but some sort of "anti-kungu aura" just seems wacky. But if there is no similar way to inhibit martial effects then it could be quite unbalancing.

Magical effects have "Dispel Magic," martial effects may have "Counters."

 

[GnomeWorks]

Magical effects have "Dispel Magic," martial effects may have "Counters."

Good call. That'd work.

 

[Revinor]

D&D has traditionally had many effects that inhibit magic. Spell resistance, anti-magic fields, anti-magic beholder eyebeams, verbal/somatic/material components, dispel magic, etc.

I don't think you will see a lot of that in 4e. As far as I understand the idea behind 4e, there is going to be minimal amount of things which take away the choices/abilities from you.

Spell resistance is gone.
Beholder anti-magic is gone AFAIK.
Material components are gone. Not sure about verbal, but I would not be surprised to see either them gone or silence not being there.
Dispel magic is not inhibiting magic, anyway, I would expect some spells removing ongoing effects, based on the type of effect (poison, fire, etc), not on source of affliction.
Anti-magic fields? Big chance they have been declared to be 'non-fun' for spellcasters and thus cut out.

 

[invokethehojo]

What does area-of-effect have to do with it? There are plenty of ways to nerf magic, there should be just as many ways to nerf martial maneuvers.

The ability to damage more than one person is a huge ability to lose. Most of the playtests I have read where the party didn't have a wizard said they thought they did poorly because of the lack of area-damaging spells. I mean 4e encounters are generally based on multiple monsters, "often more than the PC's".

 

[Mistwell]

I don't think you will see a lot of that in 4e. As far as I understand the idea behind 4e, there is going to be minimal amount of things which take away the choices/abilities from you.

Spell resistance is gone.

For the most part spell resistance was relevant because of save-or-die/effect spells.
Now that spells all seem to have saves, there is no real need for a separate spell resistance entry. You can now have higher saves, or a bonus to saves vs. spells or kinds of magic, without the need for a special spell resistance entry.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Magical effects have "Dispel Magic," martial effects may have "Counters."

maybe 'stances' like Bo9S, that cancel/nerf martial powers. Available to martial classes and monsters, but melee based maybe. You have to be next to a martial character to nerf his powers...?But (I think and hope) that total 'anti-whatever' is gone. Along with flat sneak attack immunities etc.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I am pretty sure the entire mechanical framework that allows spells like anti-magic zones to work has been stripped out of 4E. Take a look at the monster stats that we have. For any particular ability given to a monster, there is no descriptor whatsoever to say whether it is "magical" or not, or even whether it belongs to any kind of power source or not. As such, something like a "anti-magic field" or a "anti-martial field" can not be applied to monsters at all without a ridiculous amount of DM fiat. As such, I think it is obvious that the designers of 4E don't intend for such effects to be in the game rules, and that we should not expect to see anti-magic effects, let alone anti-martial effects.