Dispel Magic

[hong]

Yup.

I'm not sure about that.

 

[CleverNickName]

(this could take a while)

Supers, did you say? I think you might be right...IIRC, the player characters in 4E are supposed to be rather superhero-ish to begin with. By making a few flavor changes (spandex instead of robes, retractable adamantine claws instead of swords, etc.) you are already more than halfway there, what with the healing surges and tossing your foe about the room and whatnot.

But I digress. Dispel magic in 4E? Probably my favorite power so far. And I don't have many favorites in 4E.

 

[Spatula]

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.

Yes, and we've already seen examples of this in the 3e -> 3.5 revision with similar spells getting broken down into component parts. Symbol, emotion, the psionic versions of telekinesis (one power for each use of the spell), etc. It's much easier to remember how an ability works when it has a discrete purpose.

 

[breschau]

Actually, I think 4e would make a great Supers system -- minions, daily/encounter powers, simplified skills, and very strong roles/archetypes where everyone can kick serious ass all fit perfectly, as does the highly dynamic/mobile combat. That's probably going to be my first personal 4e project, if my time isn't sucked up by other things. Like Brian Griffon, I'm workin' on my novel...

I entertained the same thought at first, but there's no need. M&M is the perfect supers system. After playing without class and hp in a supers setting, I can't say that I'd ever go back. The at-will / encounter / daily split would work well to tone down some of the more over-the-top aspects of the supers genre, but really, when you're dealing with people who can fly to the moon and toss 777s around, blasting every round doesn't seem all that over powered.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, and we've already seen examples of this in the 3e -> 3.5 revision with similar spells getting broken down into component parts. Symbol, emotion, the psionic versions of telekinesis (one power for each use of the spell), etc. It's much easier to remember how an ability works when it has a discrete purpose.

True. This is nothing new. Every edition has scaled back on effects that were too broad. Some more than others of course.

I can't help but see this as a good thing.

OTOH, I really hope some of the extremely narrow focus spells go away too. Water Breathing for example. Unless you are absolutely sure you will need it, no one ever memorizes this. Maybe put it on a scroll or two, but that's about it. It's just WAY too narrow. I'd rather see a spell that gives you a movement type and the ability to use that movement type. So, instead of Water Breathing, you get a non-combat version of Alter Self that affects multiple targets.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yes, and we've already seen examples of this in the 3e -> 3.5 revision with similar spells getting broken down into component parts. Symbol, emotion, the psionic versions of telekinesis (one power for each use of the spell), etc. It's much easier to remember how an ability works when it has a discrete purpose.

I must admit, I was a little bit sad about these changes. They were good for casters with a fixed spell known list, since it gave so many options. And there was a specific "D&D appeal" to these spells, since they didn't fit into fixed formulas (my favorite example for the opposite is always Shadowrun and its magic system. Spells there have a very limited effect. Combat spells usually just follow the formula "deal power level boxes of damage", and get drain depending on area of effect and type of damage).
On the other hand, off course these spells very much appeal to my power-gamer self.

 

[Primal]

But...nobody knows what 4E has provided, because it hasn't been released from the printers yet. Right?

I like the new Dispel Magic. It is the first step in my favorite direction that I have seen in the last few weeks (my favorite direction being away from the Realms of Let's Add Some More Math and into the Kingdoms of Keep It Simple.) It is clean and efficient; you make a roll and unbind some magic. 'Nuff said.

I'd like to see some other powers that allow casters to not simply dispel another caster's spells, but hijack them entirely...bring those summoned creatures under their own control, or somehow "steal" the bonuses/hit points/whatever granted by the spell. That would be rad.

I'm a bit worried that they're consciously striving for as "minimized" (edited) descriptions as possible. It may save space and result in more powers in PHB, but short descriptions may leave a lot of room for interpretation. What is a clear interpretation of a rule to a designer is not necessarily that to a gamer who is not familiar with the rules.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm a bit worried that they're consciously striving for as "minimized" (edited) descriptions as possible. It may save space and result in more powers in PHB, but short descriptions may leave a lot of room for interpretation. What is a clear interpretation of a rule to a designer is not necessarily that to a gamer who is not familiar with the rules.

I have seen some rules-lawerying discussions on the D&D rules forum, and it appears to me, that the longer the sentences have gotten, the more interpretations were offered. "Is the part of the comma just an example? Is it an exclusive list? Does the reflexive pronoun refer to the beginning or the end?"

Or think of Fireball and the notion of setting combustible items to flames and stuff like that. By RAW, if you use a energy substituted (cold) Fireball in a library, the books will burn...

Again, I really liked some aspects of these longish, detailed spell write-ups. They were nice to read and provide some flavour. But they didn't always help getting exactly the point across they were intended too...

 

[med stud]

I'm a bit worried that they're consciously striving for as "minimized" (edited) descriptions as possible. It may save space and result in more powers in PHB, but short descriptions may leave a lot of room for interpretation. What is a clear interpretation of a rule to a designer is not necessarily that to a gamer who is not familiar with the rules.

You may be right. The spell descriptions provided don't seem to leave much room for interpretations to me, though.

 

[fnwc]

For example, say I want to make a school of blood wizardry for some villains. Some will be fully statted, others will just have a few relevant spells. I create a new "Blood" keyword, and define it thus; "Using this power subtracts its level in hit points from either the caster or a blood cultist within 10 squares, with no hit roll needed. Cultists or casters dropped below 1 hit point become unconscious or dead as normal after the spell is cast. If the caster draws from a cultist, gain the spell's level in healing. Blood powers gain +2 to all hit rolls and apply a -1 penalty to all saving throws versus their effects." Then I slap it on a bunch of book-standard wizard powers and dole them out to villains, describing the spell effects with suitably gory special effects.

I think this is the idea behind Power Sources. While I haven't seen much different mechanically between the Power Sources we've seen, I think we will at some point.

If this is true, then the idea of Power Sources will allow designers to create an entirely new set of rules governing a broad category of powers without having to tread upon previous ground (such as 3E druid spells vs wizard spells vs cleric spells, etc).