Anyone else miss Dispel Magic?

[Hellzon]

Back to dispel magic:

It seems to me that it is lacking one-third of its function. It can get rid of conjurations and zones, but what about harmful spells such as charms, curses, etc.? Heck, what about buffing spells?

I presume they've covered this with other spells (break enchantment, et. al.), but it seems weird that you can't dispel the magic of a spell that's cast on a person.

Save ends. WotC took out suboptimal choices, and removing an effect which has a 55% chance of going away on that character's turn usually is suboptimal.

Someone in the old Dispel Magic megathread suggested that spells cast on a person are more anchored to that person than a spell hovering in space creating a Wall of Force. Ergo, you need a specific spell to reach inside the mage Flying over lava and turn off his spell.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

So I'd have to concur with those who say that shapeshifting is fundamental to the magic of the "wise man", to the Wizard, the Shaman, the Druid.

While I certainly agree with that, and your post in general, I'd counter by arguing that DnD is no longer really imitating traditional fantasy fiction. Rather, it's building on itself and its traditions.

Wizards in past editions could shapeshift meaningful, but I'd argue that any resemblance they bore to our favorite fiction archetypes was superficial at best.

What I see of 4e, I see it embracing that mindset. Not everyone's going to like that, but not everyone has to. I don't necessarily think it means we can't play characters like our favorite fantasy heroes, but we shouldn't always expect to do the same things that those characters do.

 

[Kraydak]

Save ends. WotC took out suboptimal choices, and removing an effect which has a 55% chance of going away on that character's turn usually is suboptimal.

Well, not for the Succubus' charm. No save-ends there. Are we to need a specific Dispel Charm? And then, too, a Dispel Baneful Polymorph, Dispel (the enemy's) Beneficial Polymorph, etc... All of them dailies, of course.

Bleh, talk about siloing issues.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Do I miss Dispel Magic?

No

While I certainly agree with that, and your post in general, I'd counter by arguing that DnD is no longer really imitating traditional fantasy fiction. Rather, it's building on itself and its traditions.

Good Point! I have not thought of it like that.

Are we to need a specific Dispel Charm? And then, too, a Dispel Baneful Polymorph, Dispel (the enemy's) Beneficial Polymorph, etc... All of them dailies, of course.

Bleh, talk about siloing issues.

No we are not going to need those....I really hope. We may not be able to effect the enemies powers for many effects (stops in combat re-calculation like buff/de-buff) and IMO stuff that effects the PCs beyond one encounter will be removable with a ritual

 

[Campbell]

Well, not for the Succubus' charm. No save-ends there. Are we to need a specific Dispel Charm? And then, too, a Dispel Baneful Polymorph, Dispel (the enemy's) Beneficial Polymorph, etc... All of them dailies, of course.

Bleh, talk about siloing issues.

I honestly think it would be better for the game if we had no such abilities. Instead of relying on countermeasures why not just deal with the effect and use your own abilities proactively ?

 

[apoptosis]

While I certainly agree with that, and your post in general, I'd counter by arguing that DnD is no longer really imitating traditional fantasy fiction. Rather, it's building on itself and its traditions.

Wizards in past editions could shapeshift meaningful, but I'd argue that any resemblance they bore to our favorite fiction archetypes was superficial at best.

What I see of 4e, I see it embracing that mindset. Not everyone's going to like that, but not everyone has to. I don't necessarily think it means we can't play characters like our favorite fantasy heroes, but we shouldn't always expect to do the same things that those characters do.

A valid point definitely but I would think the rebuttal would be, then D&D is no longer the game that allows us to imitate a particular troupe it once did (i might be using troupe incorrectly).

For me this traditional fantasy fiction while not actually all that traditional is what I (an others) are looking for from a fantasy system so it is a bit of a loss.

Conversely the new game might generate new 'troupes' (probably still using the word incorrectly, frankly i am worried i just made it up as the spelling looks wrong) but I generally don't think this will be the case.

Not because of any issue with 4e itself but because our imagined traditional fantasy was created when there were so few games around that the games that did exist had a strong effect in sculpting our views. Now when there are so many RPGs out there, when a new game is launched i would think its effect on this 'Jungian' idea of fantasy is probably much less (i could be wrong in this hypothesis and possibly WoW and anime would be a good argument against this as they have probably had a huge impact in reimagining fantasy )

 

[JohnSnow]

So I'd have to concur with those who say that shapeshifting is fundamental to the magic of the "wise man", to the Wizard, the Shaman, the Druid.

I agree. I think, wait, not, I've been TOLD that we'll get shapeshifting when the druid class is released. So there will be shapeshifting in 4e, if not in the first PHB.

To an extent, it's a drawback of the class-based system. In stories, it's hard to tell a wizard from a shaman from a druid, unless said fiction is deliberately based on D&D (and it's not always easy even then). In D&D, the "shapeshifting wise-man" is more the druid's schtick than the wizard's.

Will we see wizards transforming themselves? Given the popularity of Harry Potter's Animagi, I'm gonna guess yes. This may very well involve a ritual of some sort that the wizard has to learn (like Harry Potter's Pollyjuice Potion).

Even if there is frequent shapeshifting, I'll go out on a limb and say I'm pretty sure it won't involve a single power.

 

[Ipissimus]

On Polymorph: I guess I sort of agree with both sides here. I think people who only want certain signature forms or want to change others into swine should be able to with a limited spell. Those who want more freeform, expanded, shapeshifting should be able to do it as well. I'm hoping that, the way they're talking about the Druid class, everyone will be catered for. Those who want limited shapeshifting pick out some powers, those who want expanded go Druid or take Druid Class Training feats.

On Charm & Dispel Magic: I'm betting that 'Break Enchantment' will be specifically for Charm effects and it'll be a ritual. -crosses fingers that he's right about the implimentation of rituals-

 

[kennew142]

I wish I could remember where it was, but one of the designers has said that any information required for polymorph would be included in the text of the spell. It seems a little strange to me, but that would imply that some sort of polymorph will be in 4e. No confirmation of whether it will be in PHB1 or not. The assumption that there will be no polymorph in 4e would seem to be another example of certain posters assuming the worst. I believe that we've also been told that polymorph will look more like some of the spells of the polymorph sub-school from later in 3e.

I've played in games where each form was essentially a distinct spell. It worked well, and I'm not sure that it's necessary to have a single spell that allows a wizard to assume whatever form he wants. If it exists, I believe it should be a ritual - not a spell.

 

[pawsplay]

2) Polymorph breaks the game. It's as simple as that. It is by far the most potent spell in the PHB, and the only spell that grows exponentially in power depending on the diversity of monster types present in a campaign/sourcebooks available. It may be a 'straightforward effect', but its impact is meteoric.

Really? Because I've run a two year long 3.5 game including a Master of Many Forms, two wizards, and a polymorphing sorcerer and I have not found it to be a problem. Currently my PCs are level 13-14.