Dispel Magic

[CleverNickName]

And I can testify that my design concerns with the spells placed flavor first and worried about descriptive mechanics afterwards. 4e provided everything I needed.

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.

 

[Lizard]

. . .

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

We'll know when we've seen the rules. IAE, given the lack of a mad rush to jump on the bandwagon by publishers, I probably won't have to worry about it until 2009.

 

[hong]

We'll know when we've seen the rules. IAE, given the lack of a mad rush to jump on the bandwagon by publishers, I probably won't have to worry about it until 2009.

But you're not going to stop talking about it, right?

 

[HeinorNY]

We'll know when we've seen the rules. IAE, given the lack of a mad rush to jump on the bandwagon by publishers, I probably won't have to worry about it until 2009.

Correction: WE won't have to worry about it until 2009.

 

[Kishin]

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.

They nerfed the living hell out of the things it targets, too. Without massive buff stacking, Dispel Magic becomes markedly less necessary.

 

[Lizard]

But you're not going to stop talking about it, right?

Fail to see any connection.

From a designer's perspective, there's so much missing in 4e that it's a gold mine of sourcebooks waiting to be written. (Let's start with profession skills. And low powered rings. And Bards.) And making monsters is a breeze -- pick a monster name, a noun, and an adjective or a verb, and you're golden! The best part is, you don't even need to create new monsters -- just make up a dozen more variant gnolls and call it a sourcebook. "Exception based design" is t3h r0xx0r! Furthermore, since 'the math' is the same at level 1 and at level 30, you can take the same concept, write new flavor text for it for every five levels or so, and not have to really pound on the numbers all that much. (And if you write incomplete rules, you can say "We object to the 3e philosophy of 'taking the DM out of the equation'; these rules offer greater opportunities for the DM to apply his personal storytelling philosophy to resolution of the scenario".)

I'm not sure if I'll like 4e as a player or a DM, but as a designer...well, it was obviously WRITTEN by designers who knew what they didn't like to do for 3e and made sure no one else would ever have to do it again. It's probably the most designer-friendly version of D&D yet.

(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...)

 

[hong]

Fail to see any connection.

From a designer's perspective, there's so much missing in 4e that it's a gold mine of sourcebooks waiting to be written.

... but are you sure you're up to designing for it, Lizard?

 

[Lizard]

... but are you sure you're up to designing for it, Lizard?

Yup.

 

[hong]

Yup.

Are you sure about that?

 

[Lizard]

Are you sure about that?

Yup.