Dispel Magic

[Spatula]

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.

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).

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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.

. . .

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

 

[Hussar]

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]

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.