Anti-martial effects?

[Incenjucar]

It would be a bad idea to have the old collection of power source-specific countermeasures, simply because there will be several power sources and we already had enough of a headache with magic vs. psionics.

 

[SmCaudata]

Rooting someone in place pretty much eliminates martial combat but does nothing to spell casting.

As a controller creating a chasm between you and the warrior will stop him but allow you to unleash spells.

There are a ton of ways to stop someone from swinging a sword at you that won't stop a spell caster. THAT is why they have anti-magic effects such as dispell and anti-magic fields. There dont' need to be any special anti-martial effects, physics and geometry do the job just fine.

 

[WheresMyD20]

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.

The amount of DM fiat needed is hardly "ridiculous". Just give any spell cast at the magic resistant monster a flat % chance to not work. Come up with some decent fluff to explain why this particular creature is magic resistant. Done.

 

[lukelightning]

I haven't seen much about what 4e martial maneuvers actually are, but if they are anything like Book of Nine Swords then they are every bit as "special" as magic, and geography and position is no counter.

Will people be able to do elemental damage with martial effects? Teleport? Walk on walls? If they can, then anything that suppresses spells better suppress these as well.

 

[TwinBahamut]

The amount of DM fiat needed is hardly "ridiculous". Just give any spell cast at the magic resistant monster a flat % chance to not work. Come up with some decent fluff to explain why this particular creature is magic resistant. Done.

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.

 

[Belphanior]

It's called "disarm". That should nullify most martial maneuvers. If you can also immobilize and silence them (in case of the warlord screaming around orders), I think you've got your bases covered.

 

[Revinor]

It's called "disarm". That should nullify most martial maneuvers. If you can also immobilize and silence them (in case of the warlord screaming around orders), I think you've got your bases covered.

Beheading also works in most cases.

 

[Jhaelen]

It would be a bad idea to have the old collection of power source-specific countermeasures, simply because there will be several power sources and we already had enough of a headache with magic vs. psionics.

This.
Having power-source specific countermeasures just screw players choosing a class based on that power-source. Countermeasures that affect all player characters equally are a lot better.

 

[Surgoshan]

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.

 

[DM_Blake]

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.

Each of these things you describe has been fun for me, and for my groups.

First time a new player runs into a beholder, it's really quite fun, for him and for me, to watch him try to figure out how to deal with it.

These types of things give the DM many tools to add puzzles and challenges to a dungeon (et. al.) and Dealing with all these puzzles and challenges has been a source of many strategic and tactical triumphs for players.

I hope your list of things that have gone away is wrong. Or at the very least, by "gone" I hope you mean "rarely encountered but still possible".