Anti-martial effects?

[DM_Blake]

Really, I think the purpose behind having higher level monsters with spell resistance and/or magic-nullifying abilities was because high level spellcasters were so incredibly powerful compared to other high level PCs. Since they're deliberately designing the various classes to be on a par at higher levels, it should no longer be necessary to build powerful monsters to take out the casters.

It should not be necessary. With that I agree.

But it should be possible.

I would imagine, in a world as full of magice as D&D, many mages (and others) would devote long hours, even long years, to finding spells they can cast, or items they can make, to prevent enemy mages from using their spells in combat.

I would also imagine, for those Darwinists out there, that a world with magical predators (including races capable of producing mages and clerics) would eventually see some "survival of the fittest" type of evolutionary advantages that take the form of resistance or even immunity to magic.

That said, one type of challenge players have always faced has been overcoming creatures or situations that have defenses that prevent the players' best abilities from working against them.

This has usually taken the form of anti-magic of some kind.

But now with magical abilities and non-magical abilities being essentially balanced, I hope we can still challenge players with creatures or situations that prevent the players' best abilities from working against them.

Only now, if we do, it will not only be anti-magic, but also anti-combat as well.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Well, in order to do that, first you need to define what a "spell" is in 4E. As far as I am aware, the only use for the word "spell" in 4E is for Arcane Powers. As such, when using the definition you just gave, for anything other than an Arcane Power, such as Divine Powers, Rituals, or Powers for any other kind of "magical" power source, you need some level of DM fiat for your "magic resistant modifier" to apply.

Anyways, what you are talking about has nothing to do with what I was actually discussing.

Take a look at the Pit Fiend's "Point of Terror" ability, which inflicts a penalty on all defenses for its target. It is described as a minor, at-will, ranged fear effect. There is absolutely no distinction made whether this ability is magical or non-magical in nature. There is no mention of what kind of power source this ability is. Nothing at all. Will this ability work in an "anti-magic field"? Can it be countered with an "anti-martial field"? Will it work against a PC who has your "magic resistant modifier"? The only way to resolve such questions is pure DM fiat.

The rules for PCs only allow things like anti-magic to work in a sketchy way relying on Power Source, but since monster design completely ignores the existence of Power Sources, that sketchy method is useless for PC-monster interactions. The rules simply don't support the existence of anti-magic, especially if PCs try to benefit from that kind of power in any way.

You call it "DM fiat", I call it "DM's common sense". The whole point of having a referee in the game is so that he can make judgement calls. If you have a DM who's fair, it's not a problem.

 

[Maximillian]

From TwinBahamut

Will this ability work in an "anti-magic field"? Can it be countered with an "anti-martial field"? Will it work against a PC who has your "magic resistant modifier"? The only way to resolve such questions is pure DM fiat.

You're spot on about monster abilities. Unless there's some coding we're unaware of in the monster manual, there's nothing to separate them out. On the other hand, the specific types for various abilities ("Exploits," "Spells" and "Prayers," etc.) would serve as a perfectly good tag to avoid this being a situation of DM Fiat in most circumstances.

3.x was based around an idea of a universal system, and had pretty sharp categorization for most things (and this actually improved as the system was added to). 4th ed, and its "PCs are different" philosophy allows for more flexibility in monster design, but it cuts out a great deal of that clear cut definition to every power.

I'd have to come down on the side that says there don't need to be specific powers for stopping wizards and warlocks. As much as fighters have been brought up in power, wizards have been reduced, losing a great deal of their former flexibility. It seems like they have far fewer Buff spells, and we know illusions and necromancy and enchantment have been corked. Conjuration also seems to have gone through major surgery.

Despite the fact that a wizard has more constant power, she has less options. It's the wizard-as-swiss-army-knife factor of 1, 2 and 3e that make dispelling, spell resistance and anti-magic spheres important. It's the fact that they deal so much more damage with an individual attack. Those problems are gone.

Mind you, I'm dead certain we'll be seeing all of those types of abilities from 3rd party producers before the new year if Wizards opts to take them out.

 

[Scipio202]

Forced rerolls (which we've seen) are a (partial) "counter" to martial (as well as other sourced) powers. One could also imagine typed rerolls - like "as an immediate action after a martial power is used targeting you, force the target to reroll the attack at a -5 penalty". Could even add an effect like "also ignore any 'miss' effects" to make it more of a complete counter.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

You call it "DM fiat", I call it "DM's common sense". The whole point of having a referee in the game is so that he can make judgement calls. If you have a DM who's fair, it's not a problem.

That doesn't change the fact that it's still the DM's call, whatever you call it. If there's no hard and fast system that says "these kinds of monster powers are this, and those kind are that", then the DM has to make a decision. Whether or not your DM is fair or not doesn't have anything to do with it - the judgement calls of your DM are going to be different from my DM, are going to be different from any other given DM, unless they codify it.

Edit: And that's why anti-magic or anti-[specific power source] won't work well, unless monster abilities are typified in some way with regard to power source or somesuch. Building a balanced system essentially from the ground up is useless if you let people decide things like that however they want - inevitably, in some games, the balance they so meticulously (assumedly) created will be utterly destroyed by "DM common sense", because the DM is emotionally attached to anti-magic (for example).

 

[WheresMyD20]

That doesn't change the fact that it's still the DM's call, whatever you call it. If there's no hard and fast system that says "these kinds of monster powers are this, and those kind are that", then the DM has to make a decision. Whether or not your DM is fair or not doesn't have anything to do with it - the judgement calls of your DM are going to be different from my DM, are going to be different from any other given DM, unless they codify it.

Why do all DMs have to rule things the same way?

 

[Lord Sessadore]

Why do all DMs have to rule things the same way?

I'm not saying they have to. However, including anti-magic in the core game and not specifying which monster abilities specifically are magic (and therefore which are affected by anti-magic) would seem to be a huge gaping hole in the design of the system, would it not?

It would be like including ongoing damage entries in monster blocks and not describing how ongoing damage is intended to work within the system. (ie- having "... plus ongoing fire damage 5" in the stat block, but nothing else anywhere. Do you take damage on your turn? Their turn? Every other turn? How do you stop it? etc...)

Most people would have a fairly good idea of what makes sense, but there is the chance that the designers had a stroke of brilliance and came up with something entirely different that works even better, or had to go with something counter-intuitive to make the math work, or what have you. My point is that, if the designers intend to have an effect in the system, they better indicate how it works and what it works on.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

Well looky here. Looks like some of us are going to be pleased. New Design&Dev article featuring Dispel Magic!
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080328

And the power description:

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.

 

[hong]

Hm. What's a "zone"? Any examples of those yet?

 

[Scipio202]

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.