Dispel Magic

[FireLance]

Btw, that charm, save ends effect on your friend? Yup, Dispel Magic no worky. I'm not impressed with boasted about how short a spell description compared to earlier editions, when the new spell has precious little to do with the old one.

Don't forget that a 1st-level paladin can grant an additional save once per encounter with Channel Divinity: Divine Mettle, and a 1st-level cleric can grant an additional save once per round if he hits with Sacred Flame. A 6th-level daily power that has a chance of ending an ongoing effect that the target can save against seems under-powered to me. It might work as a 2nd-level encounter power, though.

 

[Falling Icicle]

So Dispel Magic can't end Fly, Invisibility, etc. Interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about the very limited scope of it quite yet. Of the level 10-16 spells, I only saw 3 of them that can be negated by dispel Magic.

 

[FireLance]

So Dispel Magic can't end Fly, Invisibility, etc. Interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about the very limited scope of it quite yet. Of the level 10-16 spells, I only saw 3 of them that can be negated by dispel Magic.

You're looking in the wrong place. The relevant question is not "How many wizard spells create conjurations or zones?", but "How many monsters in the Monster Manual have abilities that create conjurations or zones?"

EDIT: And I should add that a quick check with the Monsters & More document shows that there is only one such ability so far: the black dragon's Cloud of Darkness (Zone).

 

[Incenjucar]

Really, the spell just seems to be "Dispel Conjuration."

 

[Irda Ranger]

Really, the spell just seems to be "Dispel Conjuration."

That's what I was thinking. The name "Dispel Magic" is now way too broad and misleading.

Of course, D&D already has a word for "Dispel Conjuration": Abjure. They simply should have called it that as a nod to EGG and left the name as succinct and accurate as the rules.

 

[Spatula]

Any sort of "buff dispel" is hugely problematic because the game grinds to a halt while you figure out the new status of various combatants. Anyway, I think 4e is mostly doing away with combat buff spells, outside of personal defenses and 1-round duration type things. Without being able to dispel combat buffs or debuffs, most of the reasons to use the old dispel magic in combat are gone, as the article notes. What remains is getting rid of in-place magical effects. So it makes sense, even if the comparison to the old spell is somewhat faulty. "Simplifying" is easy when you ban most of the available options.

 

[Bishmon]

I'm not sure how much I like the decreased scope of dispel magic. I might have preferred they just gotten rid of it. Instead it's kind of in this weird area where dispel magic now dispels some magic, but not other magic, for no reason other than a seemingly arbitrary distinction.

But, like with many other 4E things, I'm sure it won't be too much trouble to work into the narrative as long as I don't get hung up on the precise mechanic. I'm not thrilled that's how I find myself looking at some of this stuff, but it is what it is.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I just hope that there's a "dispel cantrip" cantrip...

 

[Lanefan]

Decidedly unimpressive. I agree with those who suggest the name now needs changing.

A spell called "Dispel Magic" ought to be something much more powerful...more like a weaker disjunction, that hits an area and does the following:
- ends all spell effects;
- interrupts and counters any spells in process of being cast;
- temporarily de-magics most items;
- has a chance of permanently disenchanting minor items.

If they want to reduce the amount of magic, there's no better way than by making the anti-magic spells *more* powerful rather than less...

Lanefan

 

[small pumpkin man]

If they want to reduce the amount of magic, there's no better way than by making the anti-magic spells *more* powerful rather than less...

Lanefan

No, that's the thinking that gave us all of the Golems and spell resistance and Disjunction and Disenchanters and all of ther other anti-magic stuff out there in 3.x. It didn't work, not even close, the 4e idea of balancing effects in the first place allows you to start with a balanced playing field and then add effects on top of that, at which point you don't need arbitrary "get rid of all magic" effects.