General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Two things:
1. 100 gold in my DnD game isn't the same as 100 gold in your DnD game.
I may be running a scrappy, every gold is rare type of game where the heroes are always hard up for cash. You may be running a game where the heroes are far wealthier then the suggest DMG wealth for that level. Are either games wrong, no. But in my game, ritual casters are punished where as in your game ritual casters have it easy.
Sorry, I don't buy that. If you are already willfully choosing to change the game's basic assumptions about wealth per level, you can just as easily change the game's basic assumptions about ritual component cost. If you rarely give out gold, you should be scaling the cost of rituals to compensate for that. I think it's fine to run a game where getting gold is like getting platinum (or more rare!) but you can just as easily divide all ritual costs by 10. Otherwise, you are making a decision that says, "Rituals WILL be more rare in my campaign world because that's the way I want it, and I'm OK with that being different than the default assumption."
__________________ Rodney Thompson
RPG Designer/Developer, Dungeons & Dragons/Star Wars
Wizards of the Coast
Webmaster, SWRPGNetwork
Follow me on Twitter: wotc_rodney
How would you address the point he raised about fast, cheap rituals turning into no-brain solutions for the problems they're meant to address? That's the problem that ritual cost and cast time are meant to solve. They're intended to be a choice with tradeoffs and costs, rather than the trivially optimal solution for the situation.
How would you address the point he raised about fast, cheap rituals turning into no-brain solutions for the problems they're meant to address? That's the problem that ritual cost and cast time are meant to solve. They're intended to be a choice with tradeoffs and costs, rather than the trivially optimal solution for the situation.
This one is an easy solution for me
Pick 1 - Fast or Cheap
If the caster wants the ritual now, he pays more gold for it
If the caster wants the ritual on the cheap, he pays more time for it
__________________ -You're Gonna Carry That Weight
Sorry, I don't buy that. If you are already willfully choosing to change the game's basic assumptions about wealth per level, you can just as easily change the game's basic assumptions about ritual component cost. If you rarely give out gold, you should be scaling the cost of rituals to compensate for that. I think it's fine to run a game where getting gold is like getting platinum (or more rare!) but you can just as easily divide all ritual costs by 10. Otherwise, you are making a decision that says, "Rituals WILL be more rare in my campaign world because that's the way I want it, and I'm OK with that being different than the default assumption."
I think a valid question is "should the game system assume the wealth of the characters at level X?"
If your answer is yes, then gold cost for class features seems reasonable.
If your answer is no, then gold cost for class features seems unreasonable.
The game system trying to micromanage the wealth of the party at any given level is really rough in a game where the DM designs and runs the adventures. 4E tries to manage everything about a character's stats; hit points, attribute (with point buy), attack bonus, healing surge, +X magic items, armor class, defenses, etc. All of those are rolled into the class / level mechanic of the game. The game system then makes assumptions based upon those universal numbers. Unless you pass out X gold per level, I don't think the game system should be making assumptions on player wealth per level. Especially if the game system is going to tie a class feature into it.
__________________ -You're Gonna Carry That Weight
Unless you pass out X gold per level, I don't think the game system should be making assumptions on player wealth per level. Especially if the game system is going to tie a class feature into it.
Except that rituals aren't cast with gold. They are cast with ritual components. You can give the PC's gold and perhaps they can buy the components with that gold. But you can just as easily give them the components directly.
In fact I think that doing so adds flavor and verisimiltude to the game. Rather than enemy spellcasters having piles of gold laying around their lairs, they have piles of ritual components.
I think a valid question is "should the game system assume the wealth of the characters at level X?"
That's a fair question, but I think if you eliminate wealth/level as an expectation then you have to also eliminate the concept of +X weapons, armor, neck slots, etc. That, or put some more ham-fisted restrictions in there (only 10th level characters can use +2 swords, etc.). Otherwise, there will be vast disparities in potential attacks/defenses, making it much harder to design balanced monsters, powers, and even other magic items.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaxk Knight of Galt
If your answer is yes, then gold cost for class features seems reasonable.
This is the answer that both 3E and 4E have given, yes.
As an aside, thinking of rituals like a class feature seems to be a problematic train of thought. You get them as a bonus, sure, but that's like saying that since wizards in 3E get Scribe Scroll then it's a poor design choice since it makes a class feature dependent on gold. I tend to think of it like a nice perk, since you're not only getting the free feat but also free rituals every so often. That's free gold for the wizard, essentially.
__________________ Rodney Thompson
RPG Designer/Developer, Dungeons & Dragons/Star Wars
Wizards of the Coast
Webmaster, SWRPGNetwork
Follow me on Twitter: wotc_rodney
That's a fair question, but I think if you eliminate wealth/level as an expectation then you have to also eliminate the concept of +X weapons, armor, neck slots, etc. That, or put some more ham-fisted restrictions in there (only 10th level characters can use +2 swords, etc.). Otherwise, there will be vast disparities in potential attacks/defenses, making it much harder to design balanced monsters, powers, and even other magic items.
I will agree with this. When you design a game that is balanced around a certain "math" you have to enforce that math as the default standard. You can't make a game model that explores 3 completely different amounts of standard wealth and have it work equally well without creation 3 different models.
Moridin, I'll also say while I disagree with you on ritual points, its fun getting to debate with a developer
Moridin, I'll also say while I disagree with you on ritual points, its fun getting to debate with a developer
Thanks, I enjoy the discussion too. This is the kind of stuff we do all day--in fact, when new materials come out, we watch everyone on the boards have all of the same discussions we had months and months before. It does sometimes get challenging because people have been very touchy about perceived insults to their preferred edition, even when it's just having a frank discussion about mechanics.
__________________ Rodney Thompson
RPG Designer/Developer, Dungeons & Dragons/Star Wars
Wizards of the Coast
Webmaster, SWRPGNetwork
Follow me on Twitter: wotc_rodney
Two things:
1. 100 gold in my DnD game isn't the same as 100 gold in your DnD game.
I may be running a scrappy, every gold is rare type of game where the heroes are always hard up for cash.
Then you're modifying the game's wealth assumptions and should be modifying ritual costs, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaxk Knight of Galt
I think a valid question is "should the game system assume the wealth of the characters at level X?"
If you want encounter building tools, then yes, there needs to be a baseline party power level against which to measure the monsters. Which means that there needs to be a baseline party wealth level, as wealth can be converted into power.
Also, I don't really see what the practical difference between a 10 minute ritual and a 1 minute ritual is. They're both long casting times, pushing it into out-of-combat activity (in most circumstances). They're also both pretty negligible amounts of time in the span of a day. Either way the ritualist says, "I'm casting this spell," and the game fast-forwards to the end of the casting time.
Two things:
2. The time it takes to cast rituals is way out of whack.
Casting times being a minimum of 10 minutes is crazy, especially for simple things. I'll go back to Wizard's Curtain (this is a good one to flog ). In 3.X, this would have easily been a level 1 spell with a casting time of a standard (or maybe a move) action. This effect probably would have lasted an hour a level. This would be an excellent spell for a wizard to gain a little privacy very fast.
In 4E though, it just becomes silly. Want some fast privacy, you'd probably be better off making stealth checks. They cost less and are effective immediately. Waiting around 10 minutes to get some privacy may not be reasonable in many cases.
Leaving the monetary costs aside... why is 10 minutes for even mundane stuff crazy?
Using your Wizard's Curtain ritual... I recent put up blinds and curtains in my house, and it easily took around 45 minutes (2-3 windows) (if you include gathering tools, measuring, etc...) and I'll admit, I've very little in the way of general handyman skills, so they're probably not perfect. A wizard being able to gather his thoughts, reach into his pocket for reagents, speak some arcane words, and being able to summon (4? I'm not familiar with the ritual) curtains ("perfectly" hung no less, with no handyman skills required), does not seem too bad to me - it's still far faster than manual labor.
The new Unseen Servant - I spend 10 minutes and then it can clean my house all day, instead of me huffing and puffing? I'll make that trade, even if it means I can't pull the old "have unseen servant drop rocks on enemies"... you know, unless I'm well prepared. 'Twould be nice if Unseen Servant mentioned what sort of action is needed to give a servant a command though, in case they're around during a combat.
Also, I don't really see what the practical difference between a 10 minute ritual and a 1 minute ritual is. They're both long casting times, pushing it into out-of-combat activity (in most circumstances). They're also both pretty negligible amounts of time in the span of a day. Either way the ritualist says, "I'm casting this spell," and the game fast-forwards to the end of the casting time.
This I agree with, I would regard rituals as generally being between these times and narrate as such. A minute is a bit short if you have to lay out a diagram and play around with a bunch of mystical gubbins and so forth.
Since it will take secconds to narrate anyway what is the problem
Also, I don't really see what the practical difference between a 10 minute ritual and a 1 minute ritual is. They're both long casting times, pushing it into out-of-combat activity (in most circumstances). They're also both pretty negligible amounts of time in the span of a day. Either way the ritualist says, "I'm casting this spell," and the game fast-forwards to the end of the casting time.
The mechanical difference only plays out if a party has less than 10 minutes to prepare for something, time is a real factor in the adventure, or the DM bases random encounters on amount of the time the party sits at any given area.
For me, this particular issue is really a flavor argument. Try sitting in your chair and wait for 1 minute. Time goes by pretty quick, and its over. Now do the same thing for 10 minutes. Its a great deal more time to just sit around and wait. That to me is a noticeable difference in my players and I. A 1 minute ritual feels like a concentrated effort of magical power that takes a bit to build up. 10 minutes is a large enough time that the rest of the group would take off the backpacks and sit down as the wizard goes through this length, intricate process.
I'm fine with that for some rituals, but not as the default. But that debate is a flavor debate the majority of the time. now the cost debate, that's a whole different ballgame.
For me, this particular issue is really a flavor argument. Try sitting in your chair and wait for 1 minute. Time goes by pretty quick, and its over. Now do the same thing for 10 minutes. Its a great deal more time to just sit around and wait. That to me is a noticeable difference in my players and I. A 1 minute ritual feels like a concentrated effort of magical power that takes a bit to build up. 10 minutes is a large enough time that the rest of the group would take off the backpacks and sit down as the wizard goes through this length, intricate process.
Exactly. One minute is time enough for the kobolds on the other side of that door to regroup, get their armor on, draw their weapons, maybe kick a table over for some makeshift barricades.
Ten minutes is enough time for the kobolds to do all that, then brew a soothing cup of tea and enjoy a few rounds of Skull-Skull while they're waiting for you guys to get on with it. It's the difference between a breather, and two back-to-back short rests.
Like I said above to Alaxk, rituals are designed in such a way as to not be the default solution to every problem. They are tools, just like any other character has, but they are not solutions. The moment you make them usable in combat, the moment you're right back to the same issues as before. That's why I think a blanket rule allowing any ritual to be cast in less than its intended time is a bad idea; it undoes the work that's been done to ensure that spellcasting doesn't obviate the usefulness of other characters and their skills.
That said, I love the idea of the "perform a ritual" skill challenge for a specific instance of a specific ritual. I think that's a really neat thing to include in an adventure, and would make a very tense encounter when players have to choose between contributing to the challenge or fighting off the bad guys. However, if you just say, "Any ritual can be performed faster as a skill challenge" then suddenly I think you get players walking around with the mentality that magic can solve all of their problems. We're in a tough fight? No problem, we'll just skill challenge a teleport ritual to get away.
I'm afraid I completely disagree with you here.
Having all rituals being available as complexity 4 skill challenges still means that *at best* it would take 10 rounds to complete, probably more and with a good chance of the ritual failing completely.
This would give any PC with ritual casting interesting choices in combat without shortcutting combat at all.
It wouldn't shortcut other things (since skills to pick locks etc will still be normally an order of magnitude easier to use) while actually making exciting things possible.
e.g. "OMG, we are in a really tough fight well over our heads - wizard, get working on your teleport ritual to get us out of here"
"I'll try, but you're going to have to hold them off while I get it sorted out"
(14 rounds of tense activity occurs while wizard attempts to get the ritual sorted out, dividing his actions between the ritual and helping to oppose the bad guys and keeping out of the way, and perhaps they manage to escape by the skin of their teeth)
vs
"OMG, we are in a really tough fight well over our heads - wizard, get working on your teleport ritual to get us out of here"
"You must be kidding. It takes 10 minutes to create a linked portal. We've got to fight against the overwhelming odds until we die, because I can't do anything to get you out of here".
I know which one looks like most fun, with most options, without shutting off any options to me.
Can you give any concrete examples where a complexity 4 skill challenge would shortcut a fight? How long do you expect your fights to last?
__________________ Plane Sailing
(Enworld Admin)
If you need to email me click here
"It makes as much sense as having Batman kill his parents and then go on to fight mutants from another dimension." - Rykion
I know which one looks like most fun, with most options, without shutting off any options to me.
This. One of the great things of 4E is the fact that combat takes longer (in combat rounds, i.e. in in-game time), allowing for more tension and secondary goals than the Blitz combats of 3E (which basically lasted like 20 seconds in-game).
Rituals with a casting time of the same order of magnitude as a single combat would make them a possible combat element with a steep price (i.e. losing at least one character's participation). At that price, plus its monetary costs, it wouldn't be an attractive option - unless really necessary.
Hence, I don't think it would get one back into the old "spellcasters rule" mode, but rather increase tension and would also mean that groups that don't have all skills covered can use rituals as backup options more easily - considering that basically every class can pick up ritual casting now, I think that's actually good, as it improves playability without forcing people to take certain skills - but due to the costs, skill-users still shine.
Mind you, I don't mind the monetary costs of most rituals (only the scrying-style rituals seem to be a bit too pricey for their short viewing time), just the overtly time-consuming nature that basically disallows the use on the time-scale of combats entirely.
* About the cost, and specifically: comparing a magical ritual to its mundane counterpart is misleading. Yes, it's cheaper to hire a servant girl than to cast unseen servant. So what? Don't forget that rituals can be a great way of showing off your wealth - in D&D rich people don't have ordinary curtains, they have magical ones!
You should only evaluate the cost compared to your PC's resources, not the game world at large. Simply because: the costs are ONLY balanced on this specific criterion. D&D isn't an economy simulation (or if it is, it's a highly implausible one) and so you should not ask this of its rituals either.
* Time cost.
What 10 minutes are telling me, and what 1 minute wouldn't have, is that rituals are definitely not meant to be used in combat.
One minute, however, is short enough I could easily see my players starting to think in terms of planning how to include rituals in combats. It would encourage round-by-round counting at the very least.
Which brings me to my main beef about this 10 minute period: why is it a specified as an exact time measurement??
It would have been much better, in my opinion, to say the time required to cast the ritual is equal to a Short Rest.
This would partly placate those who feel 10 minutes is an eternity, but more importantly it would wean us players off thinking about D&D in seconds and minutes. Instead thinking about D&D in rounds and encounters (and the space between encounters, i.e. short rests)!
By making a ritual casting fit into a short rest, you can have it take only two or three minutes if that's what the story demands. But you're still giving a clear message it isn't for combat use (because short rests does not occur during encounters, it's "the space between time" )
* Finally, Guards and Wards. From the excerpt:
"Component Cost: 5,000 gp, plus 5 healing surges"
What's up with this? This makes the ritual uncastable by the BBEG! (Monsters normally have only one surge per tier, so no ordinary monster has five)
I realize the idea behind the initially high cost is to award thinking ahead (so if you're hastily erecting these guards and wards as a last desperate action, you'll be half-way exhausted when the enemy arrives)
But not only will it mean any monsters using this would have to be handwaved (and "monsters don't pay healing surge ritual costs" is probably not a good general ruling to make) it raises the question if there is a way to cast rituals in groups, sharing the costs?
(I'm hoping the answer is "yes, it already exists, see page X of book Y")
I personally think the default casting time should be 1 minute. That prevents it from being cast in combat, but does allow a group to use it if they are given a little prenotice. And it maintains the "I am having to use some greater magic" flavor without the "Guys everyone sit down, this one is going to be a doozy" flavor that seems embedded in every ritual.
After thinking about this I have to agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stalker0
Second argument is cost. Perhaps I'm still old school; I am still getting used to 4e's abundance of gold and treasure per level compared to 3e. But still, paying 21,000 gold to observe a creature for 4 rounds (observe creature ritual) seems extremely expensive.
I'm less sure about this one. Imho, pricing in 4E is totally out of whack. The D&D economy never made much sense but in 4E it's really starting to strain believability. Since ritual costs have been chosen to make sense in comparison with the cost of magic items it's the prices for the latter that would have to be changed first.
I've already changed prices in 3E (using an exchange rate of 1:100 instead of 1:10 for the different coin types) since I don't like adventurers spending hundreds of thousands of gold pieces for (admittedly) powerful magic items. In 4E you get to spend such amounts for glorified healing potions! Inventing new fantastic materials (astral diamonds?) doesn't really solve the problem.
I'd really like to see a different system that results in more believable prices.
* Finally, Guards and Wards. From the excerpt:
"Component Cost: 5,000 gp, plus 5 healing surges"
What's up with this? This makes the ritual uncastable by the BBEG!
Not quite, the BBEG just needs some help
Quote:
Originally Posted by Player's Handbook, PHB299
Unless a ritual specifies otherwise, up to four of your allies can help you perform a ritual. [...] Your allies can assist you in two ways. First, if the ritual requires spending healing surges or some other resource, willing allies can contribute those resources.
). In 3.X, this would have easily been a level 1 spell with a casting time of a standard (or maybe a move) action. This effect probably would have lasted an hour a level. This would be an excellent spell for a wizard to gain a little privacy very fast.
)
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
