Dispel Magic

[Primal]

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...

If the terminology in the game is very exact and explicit and those sentences are carefully thought out and leave little room for interpretation, then it is a very good thing. Somehow I doubt it, though, and I'm guessing that in the future this aspect of the rules may actually be the source of most debates at the table.

I've already seen how those few lines may cause confusion when there is no room for explaining "logically" how a power (e.g. White Raven Onslaught) works -- both "realistically" and mechanically (i.e. can you opt *not* to "slide" and charge and whatever even if the Warlord's player insisted on it). And how does it work? If I can react to a Warlord's non-magical command during his turn, why can't I trigger such reactions myself? And so on. Combat may be an abstraction, but the mechanics should not hinder the story or constantly shatter your Suspension of Disbelief.

 

[Lizard]

I'm not sure about that.

Well, that makes one of us.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If the terminology in the game is very exact and explicit and those sentences are carefully thought out and leave little room for interpretation, then it is a very good thing. Somehow I doubt it, though, and I'm guessing that in the future this aspect of the rules may actually be the source of most debates at the table.

So far, I have seen nothing like that. We haven't seen many of these powers, but I don't think any of them so far where ill-defined or imprecise. What they do is clear.

I've already seen how those few lines may cause confusion when there is no room for explaining "logically" how a power (e.g. White Raven Onslaught) works -- both "realistically" and mechanically (i.e. can you opt *not* to "slide" and charge and whatever even if the Warlord's player insisted on it). And how does it work? If I can react to a Warlord's non-magical command during his turn, why can't I trigger such reactions myself? And so on. Combat may be an abstraction, but the mechanics should not hinder the story or constantly shatter your Suspension of Disbelief.

If you want to understand what the game mechanic does, only look at the game mechanic. If you want to describe what happens in the game-world, use whatever flavor text is implied and sounds reasonable.

But don't try to apply your flavor text back onto the game mechanic and try to extrapolate further rules. That's wrong, and always leads to problems.


A Vorpal Sword allows the wielder to behead a foe.
But my PC doesn't need a Vorpal Sword to behead someone. If I decide to flavor my killing blow or coup-de-grace with a head-chop, that's what happens. But I shouldn't believe that my sword just got a +5 enhancement for free.

Suspension of Disbelief only becomes a problem if you thing the game-world and the real-world have similar rules (with some extra rules for magic), and the game mechanics are a model for the game-world, just as our scientifically gathered physical laws are a model for the real-world. But that's not what the rules are. They tell you what happens in the game, yes, but they don't explain how.
If you want, you can see it as an implication. Game Mechanic Event => Game World Event. If "Game Mechanic Event" is false, "Game World Event" can be true or false. The implication is true either way. So, if X happens when you use mechanic Y, it does not follow that Y was used if X happens.
Example: "Confirmed Critical with a Vorpal Sword" => "Head Chopped Off". But not "Head Chopped Off" => "Confirmed Critical with a Vorpal Sword"

 

[Wolv0rine]

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

Which is strange, considering that Dispel Magic has been in the game longer than the 3E convention of "Okay, let's have the casters throw all their buffs on us, then engage". Dispel Magic was a pretty versatile spell.

 

[mmu1]

Which is strange, considering that Dispel Magic has been in the game longer than the 3E convention of "Okay, let's have the casters throw all their buffs on us, then engage". Dispel Magic was a pretty versatile spell.

"All the healing spells are too hard to keep track of and they take up too much space! Cure, Remove Disease, Neautralize Poison, Lesser Restoration, Restoration, Regenerate, Heal..."

"It's ok, we fixed it. There's only one healing spell now - we call it Heal - and it only heals falling damage taken when someone uses a power to Slide you over a drop, or from being speared by a Goblin Picador. I know it doesn't sound very useful at first glance, but everything else now only damages you for one round, or till the end of the encounter, so you don't need it to do anything else. Best of all, it's only 15 lines of text!"

Yet another triumph for the "If it's not essential for miniature combat, it doesn't need to be in the game." school of thought. Mmm, fun.

 

[med stud]

I don't think there is any powerful anti-magic spell or ability in this edition the way Dispel magic used to be. Consider that martial abilities keep pace with magical abilities now, a blanket dispel magic would hose the arcane and the divine power source compared to the martial power source. The old dispel magic was more powerful, yes, but the old magic was also more powerful than the new magic.

I think much of the negativity towards the "nerfing" of Dispel magic is due to judging a 4e spell against a 3e backdrop. 3e Dispel magic was fine for it's edition (if a bit slow to resolve) while I suppose 4e Dispel magic will be fine for 4e.

 

[Knightlord]

To be completely honest, I kinda like this new version of Dispel Magic. Sure some of the diversity is gone, but it makes it a little faster in game. Really, my group rarely ever used Dispel Magic in 3e simply due to it's massive potential uses (and the huge amount of text explaining those potential uses). When we did use it, we just kinda simplified it down to: Ok, save against the spell. Does he have any SR? No. And he didn't save? No. Well, the monster loses this buff and this buff, but not this buff (depending on the roll). Did it follow the rules? No. Did it make the game faster and more enjoyable? Yes, at least in my opinion.

My point: Just because something has been simplified in how it is used or what it does, that does not mean that it has been made completely useless. Just different. And perhaps, slighty easier to manage.

Just my thoughts.

 

[MaelStorm]

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...

And IMO, that's a step in the right direction.

 

[Lizard]

I don't think there is any powerful anti-magic spell or ability in this edition the way Dispel magic used to be. Consider that martial abilities keep pace with magical abilities now, a blanket dispel magic would hose the arcane and the divine power source compared to the martial power source.

Which would help make Martial heroes feel like they weren't using "magic by another name".

 

[med stud]

Which would help make Martial heroes feel like they weren't using "magic by another name".

Why would they feel they were using magic? The only way a Martial hero's player would feel like he is using "magic by another name" is if the player is far too ingrained in D&D thinking. A fighter using Tide of Iron doesn't feel like "gee, this is magical!" Same thing with the rogue, etc.