Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kraydak" data-source="post: 4140767" data-attributes="member: 12306">I do agree that 3.X dispel was a problem.  Or, more precisely, it was complicated *in circumstances that were already complicated by other effects*.  If you didn't have people megabuffing themselves, dispel posed no problem.  4e *may* have already solved the megabuffage issue (I'm very unconvinced that tons of very short duration buffs is less complicated), which means that dispel in its 3.X concept shouldn't pose any problems (any buffs it drops were already on their way out).  The change to the easy of running dispel in 3.X and 4e *has nothing to do* with the change in the spell itself.I would greatly appreciate it if the 4e devs start making 3.X/4e comparisons that make sense (frankly, it started feeling dishonest a while back).  3.X dispel was not 120 lines.  3.X dispel was complicated, *but* they "solved" (it had already been solved, elsewhere) that problem by *removing* it, not overhauling it. (4e's dispel is an entirely different beast).Why shouldn't Dispel hit short duration effects?  Why shouldn't it be able to suppress magic items (save ends, int vs wielder's will OR 10+item's level or some such)?  Why shouldn't it be able to suppress rituals (int vs. caster's will at -5 for extra ritual strength)?  Something like that would be a conversion of Dispel to 4e.</blockquote>