Have they tackled Anti-Magic yet?

[surfarcher]

I've been playing with the idea of "exclusion zones".

These are areas within which one of the following applies:

• A given power source (or sources) fail.
• A given keyword (or keywords) fail.

So some uber-Lich might have a zone excluding radiant powers.

Personally I think excluding a source is overpowered and unusable - except perhaps a zone excluding all powers for an exceptional puzzle or similar. But hey I might be wrong.

I also think the exclusion on keywords should be roughly one per tier.

Mind you it's just an idea I am playing with. I'm not sure it has any real use.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh, I think its OK to have some sort of zone that nerfs a power source for an encounter, as long as it isn't too dramatic. You don't want to cripple the wizard in the big boss fight, it will be a drag for the player.

I still think its better overall to make skill challenges to negate or avoid the problem or make it a dynamic effect that moves, waxes and wanes, or at least can be avoided to some extent. It would be better if the say the wizard was stuck fighting the minions during the boss encounter for example. He gets to do something interesting, but there is a notable effect.

 

[surfarcher]

I like the dynamic thing That could make it really interesting.

And I completely agree with everything else you wrote

 

[DracoSuave]

One thing to remember about anti-Power source abilities is that it's not -really- anti-Power source in practice.

Thing is, to exercise them, you as a DM have to specificly put them in place, and you are fully aware of your party's composition. Rationalizing it as simply 'Well it'd be there no matter what' is not a valid excuse, it's a either a weak recourse from a reckless DM, or a lie from a DM who doesn't want his players to think they are targetted that way.

But between you and me, we know better than that.

'But what if there's an Anti-Martial zone in a party with no Martial players?' Well then, it doesn't -matter- what the zone is. You're just putting it in randomly as a set piece. It has no impact on play, the same as red tiles on the floor.

Let's say you have a party consisting of Joe, the avenger, Bob, the barbarian, Fred, the fighter, Tommy, the artificer, and Chris, the psionicist.

All Anti-Arcane abilities are -actually- Anti-Tommy abilities. All Anti-Primal abilities are -actually- Anti-Bob.

And so on.

So, if you and your game is comfortable with abilities that -specificly- target and attack specific -players- then go for it. However, if your game is not comfortable with this sort of ability, then it is a -bad idea- and may cause resentment from the player, who feels rightly that you are targeting him specificly.

Because you -are-.

 

[Mort_Q]

True enough.

I had a DM once that wouldn't be cooperative when I rolled up my 3e Ranger. I asked simply, since the campaign was as yet undescribed, what would be an appropriate favoured enemy. Wouldn't say. Can't remember what I picked... don't recall ever getting the bonus either.

 

[surfarcher]

Well I did say I wasn't so sure of the power source exclusion. It just doesn't feel right somehow.

And oops AbdulAlhazred was talking about that too - I was applying his thoughts to in principle to either that might be used.

A Lich with an anti-radiant zone in it's lair, however, is plausible and could be very interesting!

 

[Flipguarder]

The reason anti-magic was in 3.5 was because wizards were way too powerful to begin with. Now that things are swinging more balanced, the idea of an anti-magic zone needs to be either non-existent, or available to more than 1 (i would argue more than 2) power sources.

Gone are the days when a wizard can do anything he can imagine, and a fighter sits there and whacks the enemy X times per turn.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Let's say you have a party consisting of Joe, the avenger, Bob, the barbarian, Fred, the fighter, Tommy, the artificer, and Chris, the psionicist.

All Anti-Arcane abilities are -actually- Anti-Tommy abilities. All Anti-Primal abilities are -actually- Anti-Bob.

Well, sure. But the DM also decides who each monster attacks on it's initiative. It shouldn't be anything more personal than that. If the DM wants to get personal, he doesn't need to make up an arbitrary new mechanic to do it.


The Magic Circle ritual blocks creatures based on thier origin, and can be broken by creatures of a different origin. In a party consisting of a dwarf, human, halfling, dragonborn, and Eladrin, a Magic Circle set to block Fey singles out the Eladrin. Set to affect 'natural' creatures, the Eladrin is the only one who can cross it.


An anti-Source power of some kind could be comparable. I'm starting to think that it would make the most sense as a Ritual that works something like Magic Circle. It creates a barrier that effects and users of a source cannot cross (blocks line of effect). It would have a difficulty to overcome based on the key skill check, and breaking through it might have some consequence.

 

[DracoSuave]

Well, like I said, some groups can handle it.

Some can't tho, and as a general rule, Hose Bob isn't exactly the right way to design encounters.

What you should be going more towards is by role. So you have monsters that Defenders have trouble with, monsters that Controllers have trouble with, etc.

And I do agree, that Magic Circle can be used as a Ritual of Hose Bob. That's why you use it sparingly.

 

[LostSoul]

All Anti-Arcane abilities are -actually- Anti-Tommy abilities. All Anti-Primal abilities are -actually- Anti-Bob.

That's only true if you design the dungeon specifically for that sole party to face.

In my campaign, I made a dungeon that was 8th? level. It was to challenge the 8th level PCs. It was populated by a cult of Orcus, meaning lots of undead for the radiant-damage-free party. There was a TPK in that dungeon.

The party started again at first level. I didn't change the dungeon at all. No matter what composition the party had, the dungeon would stay the same. If they had buffed up on radiant damage, still the same. No radiant damage? Still the same.


The key point is that an impartial DM running a world meant to challenge the players doesn't mean that an encounter difficult for melee PCs is an anti-Fred encounter, or that an encounter with undead is a pro-Claude encounter. It just means that the players have to deal with what they face (which is usually by their choice), nothing more, nothing less.

You can put anti-magic in a dungeon without it being specifically anti-Mark. "To the west is the dungeon of the Mad Overlord." "What do we know about him?" (roll, roll) "Well, he hated mages and dedicated his life to killing them. People say that magic-draining creatures and traps fill his dungeon." "Okay, let's go somewhere else." "Cool."